PCIT v. Clix Finance\nIndia (P) Ltd.

473 ITR 650High Court2025#14234 most cited
7

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2025 to 2026.

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 144BSection 10(38)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 234B

Issues it is cited on

inadequate enquirysection 40(a)(i)malabar industrialerroneous and prejudicialsection 40(a)section 40asection 40(a)(ia)section 40section 263section 144bsection 26scrutiny assessment

Judgments citing PCIT v. Clix Finance\nIndia (P) Ltd.

Amazon Smart Commerce Solutions Private Limited, Delhi vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi-1, Delhi

ITA 3533/DEL/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Mar 2026AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumar

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 40A(2)

…the form in which the enquiries should have been conducted during the course of assessment. PCIT v. NYA International: [2025] 173 taxmann.com 102 (Guj.) – Revenue's SLP dismissed in [2025] 173 taxmann.com 103 (SC) PCIT v. Clix Finance India (P.) Ltd.: [2025] 473 ITR 650 (Delhi) CIT vs. Sunbeam Auto Ltd: 332 ITR 167 (Del) CIT v. International Travel House: 344 ITR 554 (Del) CIT vs. Vikas Polymers: 341 ITR 537 (Del) Gulmohar Finances Limited: 170 Taxman 483 (Del.) Fab India Overseas vs. CIT: 244 CTR 380 (Del.) CIT vs. Vodafone Essar: 212 Taxman 184 (Del.) -CIT v. DLF Ltd.: 350 ITR 555 (Del) -CIT v. Ratlam Coal Ash…

Sunita Saini, Haryana vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(4), Faridabad, Haryana

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 1877/DEL/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Oct 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri M Balaganeshआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.1877/Del/2024 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year:2016-17 बनाम Sunita Saini, Income Tax Officer, House No.743P, Sector-38, Vs. Ward 1(4), Gurugram, Haryana. Faridabad. Pan No.Awmps2317Q अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 10(38)Section 147Section 151Section 263

…Ld. Pr CIT was not entitled to assume jurisdiction on the basis of inadequate enquiry in view of the decision of CIT vs. Cartier Leafin (P) Ltd. [112 taxmann.com 63 (Bom)], CIT vs. Nirav Modi [390 ITR 292 (Bom)], PCIT vs. Clix Finance India (P) Ltd. [2025] [473 ITR 650 (Delhi)], CIT v. Anil Kumar Sharma [355 ITR 83(Del)], and CIT v. Paville Projects (P.) Ltd. [2023] 453 ITR 447 (SC). It is submitted that the above decisions have been considered in the recent decision of Hon’ble ITAT, Mumbai in the case of Procter and Gamble Health Private Limited Vs PCIT in ITA No.2326/Mum/2025 dated 14.08.2025 wherein it w…

Fairbridge Capital Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Principal Commissioner of Income-Tax, Mumbai - 6, Mumbai, Maharashtra

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3626/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Oct 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon'Ble & Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Ms. Chandni Shah a/w Mr. Hardik Nirmal andFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Perampurna, CIT, D/R [virtually
Section 143(3)Section 263

…ed that there can be no doubt that where the view taken by the Assessing Officer is a possible view, interference under Section 263 of the Act, is not permissible." 13. The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case of PCIT vs. Clix Finance India (P) Ltd. [2025] 473 ITR 650 (Delhi) interalia held as under:- 27. Considering the aforesaid judicial pronouncements, it can be safely concluded that inadequacy of enquiry by the AO with respect to certain claims would not in itself be a reason to invoke the powers enshrined in Section 263 of the Act. The Revenue in the instant case has not been able to make out a sufficient…

Hari Krishna Exports Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax -5, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1858/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Oct 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon'Ble & Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh Joshi, A/RFor Respondent: Shri Ritesh Misra, CIT D/R
Section 143(3)Section 195Section 263Section 40

…ed that there can be no doubt that where the view taken by the Assessing Officer is a possible view, interference under Section 263 of the Act, is not permissible.” 15. The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case of PCIT vs. Clix Finance India (P) Ltd. [2025] 473 ITR 650 (Delhi) interalia held as under:- 27. Considering the aforesaid judicial pronouncements, it can be safely concluded that inadequacy of enquiry by the AO with respect to certain claims would not in itself be a reason to invoke the powers enshrined in Section 263 of the Act. The Revenue in the instant case has not been able to make out a sufficient…

Booking.Com India Support & Marketing Services Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 6(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 3675/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Sept 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon’Ble & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri Ajit Jain, Shri Siddhesh ChauguleFor Respondent: Shri Satyaprakash R. Singh, CIT D/R
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 80G

…d that there can be no doubt that where the view taken by the Assessing Officer is a possible view, interference under Section 263 of the Act, is not permissible.” 10. The Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in the case of PCIT vs. Clix Finance India (P) Ltd. [2025] 473 ITR 650 (Delhi) interalia held as under:- 27. Considering the aforesaid judicial pronouncements, it can be safely concluded that inadequacy of enquiry by the AO with respect to certain claims would not in itself be a reason to invoke the powers enshrined in Section 263 of the Act. The Revenue in the instant case has not been able to make out a sufficient…

Procter and Gamble Health Private Limited, Mumbai vs. The Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax -8, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2326/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Aug 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon'Ble & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Ms. Aarti Vissanji & Shri Ajay BhandariFor Respondent: Shri R A Dhyani, CIT D/R
Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 263Section 40Section 50CSection 56(2)(x)Section 68

…ed that there can be no doubt that where the view taken by the Assessing Officer is a possible view, interference under Section 263 of the Act, is not permissible.” 16. The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case of PCIT vs. Clix Finance India (P) Ltd. [2025] 473 ITR 650 (Delhi) interalia held as under:- “19. A bare reading of sub-Section (1) of Section 263 of the Act makes it abundantly clear that the said provision lays down a twopronged test to exercise the revisional authority i.e., firstly, the assessment order must be erroneous and secondly, it must be prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue. Further, E…

Venetian Ldf Projects LLP, Gurgaon vs. ACIT Circle-4(1), Gurgaon

In the result, grounds raised by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 3533/DEL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi01 May 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumar

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 40A(2)

…form in which the enquiries should have been conducted during the course of assessment. - PCIT v. NYA International: [2025] 173 taxmann.com 102 (Guj.) – Revenue’s SLP dismissed in [2025] 173 taxmann.com 103 (SC) - PCIT v. Clix Finance India (P.) Ltd.: [2025] 473 ITR 650 (Delhi) - CIT vs. Sunbeam Auto Ltd: 332 ITR 167 (Del) - CIT v. International Travel House: 344 ITR 554 (Del) - CIT vs. Vikas Polymers: 341 ITR 537 (Del) - Gulmohar Finances Limited: 170 Taxman 483 (Del.) - Fab India Overseas vs. CIT: 244 CTR 380 (Del.) - CIT vs. Vodafone Essar: 212 Taxman 184 (Del.) 42 - CIT vs. DLF Ltd.: 350 ITR 555 (Del) - CIT…

PCIT v. Clix Finance\nIndia (P) Ltd. (473 ITR 650) — Cited in 7 Judgments | BharatTax