Narain Singla v. PCIT

62 Taxmann.com 255Income Tax Appellate Tribunal2015#5131 most cited

What is Narain Singla v. PCIT authority for?

The Commissioner cannot invoke revisionary powers under section 263 merely due to a difference of opinion with the Assessing Officer if the AO had applied his mind to the evidence and formed a view. Revision is permissible only in cases of a 'lack of inquiry'.

23

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,314 Indian tax judgments — from 2019 to 2026.

Also referred to as

Narain Singla v. PCIT · section 263 · CIT jurisdiction · lack of inquiry · inadequate enquiry · change of opinion · prejudicial to interest of revenue · erroneous assessment order · ITAT Chandigarh · 2015

Sections most often in play

Section 147Section 148Section 143(3)Section 263Section 44AASection 115BBESection 133(6)Section 142(1)

Issues it is cited on

section 56(i)(ccv)section 80p(2)(i)prejudicial to interest of revenueinadequate enquiryassessment order erroneouslack of enquirysection 56(2)(viib)malabar industrialsection 263(1)erroneous and prejudiciallimited scrutinymere change of opinion

Judgments citing Narain Singla v. PCIT

M/S Karnataka State Seeds Corporation Limited, Bangalore vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-4, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1070/BANG/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 Sept 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.Assessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri L. Bharath, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, CIT (DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 54D

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI GEORGE GEORGE K., JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment year: 2013-14 M/s. Karnataka State Seeds Vs. The Principal Commissioner of Corporation Ltd., Income Tax, ‘Beeja Bhavan’, Bellary Road, Bengalurlu-4, Hebbal, Bangalore – 560 024. Bengaluru. PAN: AACCK 1985D APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by : Shri L. Bharath, CA Respondent by : Ms. Neera Malhotra, CIT (DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru. Date of hearing : 02.09.2021 Date of Pronouncement : 20.09.2021 O R D E R Per Chandra Poojari, Accountant Member This appeal by th…

Annu Agrotech Private Limited, Kota vs. Pr.CIT, Udiaipur

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 9/JPR/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur15 Sept 2021AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 09/Jp/2021 Assessment Year: 2016-17 Cuke Annu Agrotech Private Limited, Pr.Cit, S-47/48, S-47/48, Vs. Udaipur. Commercial Shops, Ipia 324005, Rajasthan, India. Pan No.: Aagca 5903 M Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By : Shri Mahendra Gargieya(Adv.) & Shri Devang Gargieya (Itp) Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By : Shri B.K. Gupta (Pr.Cit-Dr) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 27/07/2021 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 15 /09/2021 Vkns'K@ Order

For Appellant: Shri Mahendra Gargieya(Adv.) &For Respondent: Shri B.K. Gupta (Pr.CIT-DR)
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 263Section 56(2)(vii)Section 56(2)(viib)Section 68

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES “B”, JAIPUR Jh lanhi x®lkÃa] U;kf;d lnL; ,oa Jh foØe flag ;kno] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM & SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 09/JP/2021 Assessment Year: 2016-17 cuke Annu Agrotech Private Limited, Pr.CIT, S-47/48, S-47/48, Vs. Udaipur. Commercial Shops, IPIA 324005, Rajasthan, India. PAN No.: AAGCA 5903 M vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Shri Mahendra Gargieya(Adv.) & Shri Devang Gargieya (ITP) jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue by : Shri B.K…

Shri Satish Kumar. S/O. Sh. Hans Raj, Hoshiarpur vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-4, Hoshiarpur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 258/ASR/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar19 Dec 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri N.K. Choudhry & Shri O.P.Meenaआ.अ.संसंसंसं././././I.T.A No.258/Asr/2019 िनधा"रणवष"/A.Y.:2014-15 िनधा"रणवष" िनधा"रणवष" िनधा"रणवष" Shri Satish Kumar S/O Hans Raj, Vs. Principal Commissioner Of B-12, Mch-366/13, Billa Income-Tax-1, Jalandhar House, New Jagatpura, Hoshiarpur Pan: Aawpk 0932 D अपीलाथ" Appellant अपीलाथ" ""यथ"/Respondent ""यथ" अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ" ""यथ" ""यथ"

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 194CSection 263

…India Ltd. 2007] 295 ITR 282 (SC), ITO V. DG Housing Projects Limited [2012] 343 ITR 329 (Del),Ranka Jewellers v. Addl. CIT [2010] 328 ITR 148 (Bombay), CIT v. Sunbeam Auto Ltd. [2011] 332 ITR 167 (Delhi) [2010] 189 Taxman 436 (Delhi) Narain Singla v. Pr.CIT 62 Taxmann.com 225 (Chandigarh-Trib) , Jivan Kumar v. Pr.CIT [I.T.A.No. 219 & 672/ASR/2016 and others as per his case laws Paper Book. The learned counsel for the assessee submitted that it is a settled position of law that when the assessing officer has taken a certain view on the basis of evidence before him on the information furnished by the assessee reg…

Narain Singla v. PCIT (62 Taxmann.com 255) — Cited in 23 Judgments | BharatTax