Modi(2016) 71 Taxmann.com 272(Bom),PCIT v. Shivshahi\nP.Prakalp Ltd.

155 Taxmann.com 408High Court2023#16825 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,314 Indian tax judgments — from 2025 to 2025.

Sections most often in play

Section 147 Section 263 Section 143(3)Section 144B Section 69C Section 10(38)Section 119 Section 120

Issues it is cited on

lack of enquiry erroneous and prejudicial chief commissioner section 119 section 263 section 26 section 144b section 142 section 11 section 142(1)section 144 opportunity of being heard

Judgments citing Modi(2016) 71 Taxmann.com 272(Bom),PCIT v. Shivshahi\nP.Prakalp Ltd.

Azb and Partner, Mumbai vs. PCIT-8, Mumbai

ITA 4105/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Sept 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh Thar & Shri VinayakFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar Yadav (CIT-DR)

Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 195Section 263

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “A”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI ANIKESH BANERJEE, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A No.4105/Mum/2025 (Assessment Year: 2020-21) AZB AND PARTNERS VS PCIT, Mumbai-8, AZB House, Peninsula Room No.611, 6th Floor, Aayakar Corporate Park, Ganpatrao Kadam MAG, Lower Parel, Mumbai-400 013 Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400 020 PAN: AAKFA0281H APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee by : Shri Yogesh Thar & Shri Vinayak Bhat Respondent by : Shri Rajesh Kumar Yadav (CIT-DR) Date of hearing : 16/09/2025 Date of pronouncement : 19/09/2025 ORDER Per Anikesh Baner…

Sandhya Goel H.No.101217, Huda, Jagadhri, Haryana vs. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax Panchkula, Haryana

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 215/CHANDI/2024[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh14 May 2025AY 2015-2016

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: ShriSudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum Bansal, CIT DR

Section 10(38)Section 132Section 143(3)Section 147Section 263

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण,च"डीगढ़ "यायपीठ,च"डीगढ़ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DIVISION BENCH, ‘B’ CHANDIGARH BEFORE SHRI RAJPAL YADAV, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकरअपीलसं./ ITA No. 215/CHD/2024 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16 Sandhya Goel, Vs The PCIT, House No. 1012/17, Panchkula, HUDA, Jagadhri, Haryana. Haryana. "थायीलेखासं./PAN NO: AGXPG6152E अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Assessee by : ShriSudhir Sehgal, Advocate Revenue by :Smt. Kusum Bansal, CIT DR Date of Hearing :26.03.2025 Date of Pronouncement :14.05.2025 HYBRID HEARING ORDER PER RAJ PAL YADAV, VP…

Savita Homemakers LLP, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2849/MUM/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 May 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vp & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Shri Piyush Chhajed & Shri AyushFor Respondent: Shri Rakesh Ranjan- CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 263Section 69C

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, VP & MS PADMAVATHY S, AM I.T.A. No. 2849/Mum/2024 (Assessment Year: 2014-15) Savita Homemakers LLP ACIT, Central Circle-2(2), 1003, 10th Floor, Raheja Centre Mumbai. Premises, Free Press Journal Marg, Vs. Nariman Point, Maharashtra-400021. PAN: ABYFS2195M Appellant) : Respondent) Appellant /Assessee by : Shri Piyush Chhajed & Shri Ayush Chhajed, AR Revenue / Respondent by : Shri Rakesh Ranjan- CIT-DR : 23.04.2025 Date of Hearing : 06.05.2025 Date of Pronouncement O R D E R Per Padmavathy S, AM: This appeal by the assessee is against…

Indiabulls Commercial Credit Limited, New Delhi vs. PCIT (Central), Mumbai-3, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

ITA 2844/MUM/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Mar 2025AY 2019-20

For Appellant: Respondent byFor Respondent: Date of Hearing

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 94(7)

…0 Indiabulls Commercial Credit Limited the ld.CIT was not correct in applying the provisions of section 263 of the Act and in cancelling the same for de novo assessment, i.e CIT vs Nirav Modi(2016) 71 Taxmann.com 272(Bom),PCIT vs Shivshahi P.Prakalp Ltd(2023) 155 Taxmann.com 408(Bom),Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd vs CIT(2000) 109 Taxman 66(SC),CIT vs Gabriel India Ltd(1993) 71 Taxman 585(Bom) and Hariom Iron Trading Co.vs CIT(2003) 131 Taxman 535(P&H). 4.1 Per contra, the ld.CIT, DR has relied on the impugned order stating that there was no enquiry worth the name on part of the AO. It is submitted that on the above…

Jalalabad Solvex Private Ltd, Jalalabad vs. Pr Commissioner of Income Tax, Amritsar-1

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

ITA 117/ASR/2024[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar29 Jan 2025AY 2014-2015

Bench: Sh. Udayan Dasgupta & Sh. Krinwant Sahay

For Appellant: Sh. Ashwani Kalia, C.A

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 263Section 263(1)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AMRITSAR BENCH, AMRITSAR (HYBRID COURT) BEFORE SH. UDAYAN DASGUPTA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SH. KRINWANT SAHAY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. No. 117/Asr/2024 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Jalalabad Solvex Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-1, FF Road, Jalalabad 152024 Amritsar Punjab [PAN: AAACJ 8552B] (Respondent) (Appellant) Appellant by : Sh. Ashwani Kalia, C.A. : Respondent by Sh. Anupam Kant Garg, CIT-DR Date of Hearing : 17.12.2024 Date of Pronouncement : 29.01.2025 ORDER Per Udayan Dasgupta, J.M.: This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of the ld. PCI…