PCIT v. Delhi Airport Metro Express (P) Ltd.

398 ITR 8High Court2017#1822 most cited

What is PCIT v. Delhi Airport Metro Express (P) Ltd. authority for?

The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (PCIT) cannot send a matter back to the Assessing Officer for a fresh assessment under Section 263(1) without first conducting an inquiry himself, especially if the basis for revision is the AO's alleged lack of inquiry. If the AO has made an inquiry and taken a plausible view, the PCIT must undertake fresh verification to demonstrate the AO's conclusion is erroneous and prejudicial.

63

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2017 to 2026.

Also referred to as

PCIT v. Delhi Airport Metro Express · Section 263 · revision power · inadequate inquiry by AO · PCIT's duty to inquire · fresh assessment by AO · erroneous and prejudicial order · Delhi High Court 2017 · PCIT cannot merely send back · plausible view

Sections most often in play

Section 263Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 44AASection 115BBE

Issues it is cited on

section 256(2)national tax tribunalsection 293section 44aesection 65asection 256(1)section 262inadequate enquirysection 65b(4)section 256section 153b(1)(b)lack of enquiry

Judgments citing PCIT v. Delhi Airport Metro Express (P) Ltd.

FATTESING PUNAJI DHABRE,NAGPUR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER INCOME TAX – 2, NAGPUR

In the result, this appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 368/NAG/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur24 Feb 2026AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Khettra Mohan Roy(Physical Hearing) Fattesing Punaji Dhabre Pcit – 2, Nagpur Plot No. 132, Chandan Nagar, Post Vs Aayakar Bhawan, Civil Lines, Hanuman Nagar, Nagpur, Maharashtra – 440001. Maharashtra – 440009. [Pan: Bacpd6505Q] Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Madhav Vichare, Ca Revenue By Shri Pankaj Kumar, Cit–Dr Date Of Hearing 17.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 24.02.2026 Order Under Section 254(1) Of Income Tax Act

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 254(1)Section 263Section 54B

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “NAGPUR” BENCH, NAGPUR BEFORE SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI KHETTRA MOHAN ROY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (Physical hearing) Fattesing Punaji Dhabre PCIT – 2, Nagpur Plot No. 132, Chandan Nagar, Post Vs Aayakar Bhawan, Civil Lines, Hanuman Nagar, Nagpur, Maharashtra – 440001. Maharashtra – 440009. [PAN: BACPD6505Q] Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee by Shri Madhav Vichare, CA Revenue by Shri Pankaj Kumar, CIT–DR Date of hearing 17.02.2026 Date of pronouncement 24.02.2026 Order under section 254(1) of Income Tax Act PER PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER: 1. This…

ROHAN LANDSCAPE PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. THE PRINCIPLE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, , MUMBAI

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

ITA 3635/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Feb 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI ARUN KHODPIA (Accountant Member)

Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 263Section 3

…icer has not made any enquiry, he must himself make or cause to be made such enquiry before branding the assessment order as erroneous. This principle has been lucidly explained by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in PCIT v. Delhi Airport Metro Express Pvt. Ltd. (398 ITR 8), where it was held that the Commissioner cannot simply remand the matter for verification without first establishing error through some enquiry of his own. The same principle has been affirmed by the Hon’ble Orissa High Court in PCIT v. Earth Minerals Co. Ltd. (162 taxmann.com 272), where it was held that absence of enquiry by the Commissioner him…

GURU KRIPA ASSOCIATES,BAREILLY vs. PR. CIT, , BAREILLY

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands dismissed

ITA 97/LKW/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow14 Aug 2025AY 2017-18
Section 143(3)Section 263

…n face value.\n\n(F.1.1) We have given due consideration to a couple of orders of Hon'ble\nHigh Courts, to which our attention was invited. Firstly, we have considered\nthe order of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Pr.CIT vs. Delhi Airport Metro\nExpress (P.) Ltd. 398 ITR 8 (Delhi)/ 99 taxmann.com 382 in which the\nHon'ble High Court observed in paragraph (12) of the order: “Mr Asheesh\nJain then volunteered that the Principal Commissioner of Income-tax had\nexercised the second option available to him under section 263(1) of the Act\nby sending the entire matter back to the Assessing Officer for a fresh\nassessment.…

BHAGWATI STEEL PROCESSORS,CHANDIGARH vs. PCIT, CHANDIGARH

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 435/CHANDI/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh15 Jul 2025AY 2021-22
For Appellant: \nShri T.N. Singla, C.AFor Respondent: \nShri Manav Bansal, CIT, DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 263

…to invoke Section 263.\nΟ Reliance Communications Ltd. [240 Taxman 655 (Bom)] - held that absence of\ndiscussion in the order does not mean lack of inquiry.\nΟ Nirav Modi [390 ITR 292 (Bom)), Shashi Bhushan Gupta [202 TTJ UO 30], Delhi\nAirport Metro Express [398 ITR 8], Fine Jewellery (India) Ltd. [372 ITR 303], Jyoti\nFoundation [357 ITR 388], Brahma Centre Development (P) Ltd. [437 ITR 285],\namong others, reiterate that once inquiry is made and a possible view taken\nby the AO, the same cannot be revised under Section 263 unless the PCIT\nundertakes fresh verification and demonstrates how the AO's conclusion…

MS. SHREE WAHEGURU FASHIONS PVT. LTD.,RING ROAD, SURAT vs. PCIT , AAYAKAR BHAVAN, SURAT

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 402/SRT/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Surat03 Apr 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.402/Srt/2024 Assessment Year: (2020-21) (Hybrid Hearing) M/S Shree Waheguru Fashions Principal Commissioner Of बनाम/ Pvt. Ltd., B-1110, Radha Krishna Vs. Income-Tax (Central), Textile Market, Ring Road, Surat Central Circle-1, Surat, Aayakar - 395002 Bhavan, Majura Gate, Surat- 395001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aahcs 9568 H (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent)

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 147Section 263

…SRT/2024/AY.2020-21 Shree Waheguru Fashions Pvt. Ltd. has not made any enquiry u/s 263 of the Act. Even in case of no enquiry made by the AO, the Ld.PCIT is expected to conduct minimum enquiry as held in case of PCIT vs. Delhi Airport Metro Express Pvt. Ltd. 398 ITR 8 (Del). The Ld. AR also relied on the decision in case of CIT vs. V.M. Mittal Stainless Steel Pvt. Ltd. 263 ITR 0255 (SC) The Ld. AR also submitted that Explanation-2(a) is not applicable because AO has passed order after making proper enquiry and verification. In any case, the assessee explained the cash deposits in its detailed submission filed be…

JARNAIL SINGH,BILASPUR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1,, CHANDIGARH

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are disposed off in light of aforesaid directions

ITA 395/CHANDI/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh30 Jan 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member), SHRI. PARESH M. JOSHI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Tej Mohan Singh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Rohit Sharma, CIT DR
Section 263

…the view that the Assessing officer did not undertake inquiry, it becomes incumbent on the ld PCIT to conduct such enquiry and in support of the said proposition, reliance was placed on the following decisions: • PCIT vs. Delhi Airport Metro Express (P.) Ltd. 398 ITR 8 (Delhi) • ITO vs. D.G. Housing Projects Ltd. 343 ITR 329 (Delhi) • Director of Income Tax Vs. Jyoti Foundation 357 ITR 388 (Delhi) 26. It was further submitted that the application of mind of the AO is evident from the assessment order passed u/s 147 read with 143(3). It depicts that in respect of the major issue for which the case was re-opened i…

JARNAIL SINGH,BILASPUR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1, CHANDIGARH

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are disposed off in light of aforesaid directions

ITA 394/CHANDI/2023[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh30 Jan 2025AY 2011-2012

Bench: SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member), SHRI. PARESH M. JOSHI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Tej Mohan Singh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Rohit Sharma, CIT DR
Section 263

…the view that the Assessing officer did not undertake inquiry, it becomes incumbent on the ld PCIT to conduct such enquiry and in support of the said proposition, reliance was placed on the following decisions: • PCIT vs. Delhi Airport Metro Express (P.) Ltd. 398 ITR 8 (Delhi) • ITO vs. D.G. Housing Projects Ltd. 343 ITR 329 (Delhi) • Director of Income Tax Vs. Jyoti Foundation 357 ITR 388 (Delhi) 26. It was further submitted that the application of mind of the AO is evident from the assessment order passed u/s 147 read with 143(3). It depicts that in respect of the major issue for which the case was re-opened i…

M/S KIRAN SANRAN ASSOCIATES,PUNE vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL), PUNE, PUNE

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

ITA 791/PUN/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune09 Sept 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Naveen RanderFor Respondent: Shri Keyur Patel, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 2Section 263Section 28Section 36(1)(va)Section 43BSection 43C

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH “A”, PUNE BEFORE SHRI R. K. PANDA, VICE PRESIDENT AND MS ASTHA CHANDRA, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year : 2018-19 M/s. Karan Sanran Associates PCIT (Central), Pune 501, Karan Tej Bonita, C.T.S. Vs. No.1187/16, Off : Ghole Road, Shivajinagar, Pune – 411005 PAN : AAAAK6230H (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Naveen Rander Department by : Shri Keyur Patel, CIT-DR Date of hearing : 21-08-2024 Date of pronouncement : 09-09-2024 O R D E R PER R. K. PANDA, VP : This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 22.02.2024 passed u/s 263 of…

EXOTIC REALTORS AND DEVELOPERS,CHANDIGARH vs. PR.CIT-1, CHANDIGARH

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 189/CHANDI/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh26 Jul 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member), SHRI. PARESH M. JOSHI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Jain, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Rohit Sharma, CIT DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 253Section 263

…ht to have conducted bare minimal inquiry if PCIT is of the considered opinion that Ld. AO did not conduct any inquiry and verification. He placed reliance on judgment of Hon;ble Delhi High Court in case of PCIT Vs. Delhi Airport Metro Express Private Limited 398 ITR 8 vide order dt. 05/09/2017. 13.4 The Ld. AR contended that no amount whatsoever is specified in the impugned order consequently impugned order is not prejudicial to the interest of Revenue. Both condition of erroneous nature of order and prejudicial to Revenue must be seen by PCIT and that he has miserably failed to do so. According to him PCIT sati…

M/S DIN DAYAL PURSOTAM LAL,SIRSA vs. PR.CIT, ROHTAK

ITA 148/CHANDI/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh04 Mar 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: SHRI A.D.JAIN (Vice President), SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Gautam Jain, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Rohit Sharma, CIT-DR
Section 147Section 263Section 40A(3)

…hen, it is also settled that for holding that the assessment order prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue but is also erroneous, there has to be some minimal enquiry preceding such a conclusion is held in “PCIT Vs Delhi Airport Metro Express (P) Ltd,. 398 ITR 8 (Del), if the PCIT is of the view that AO did not undertake any enquiry, it becomes incumbent on the PCIT to conduct such enquiry. Where such basic exercise has not been carried out by the PCIT, the revisionary order is not sustainable. Such decision is in conformity with the following decisions : i) 1TA No. 771/CHD/2017 Shri Abhimanyii Gupta Vs.…

M/S DIN DAYAL PURSOTAM LAL,SIRSA vs. PR.CIT, ROHTAK

ITA 147/CHANDI/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh04 Mar 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: SHRI A.D.JAIN (Vice President), SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Gautam Jain, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Rohit Sharma, CIT-DR
Section 147Section 263Section 40A(3)

…hen, it is also settled that for holding that the assessment order prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue but is also erroneous, there has to be some minimal enquiry preceding such a conclusion is held in “PCIT Vs Delhi Airport Metro Express (P) Ltd,. 398 ITR 8 (Del), if the PCIT is of the view that AO did not undertake any enquiry, it becomes incumbent on the PCIT to conduct such enquiry. Where such basic exercise has not been carried out by the PCIT, the revisionary order is not sustainable. Such decision is in conformity with the following decisions : i) 1TA No. 771/CHD/2017 Shri Abhimanyii Gupta Vs.…

M/S DIN DAYAL PURSOTAM LAL,SIRSA vs. PR.CIT, ROHTAK

ITA 146/CHANDI/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh04 Mar 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: SHRI A.D.JAIN (Vice President), SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Gautam Jain, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Rohit Sharma, CIT-DR
Section 147Section 263Section 40A(3)

…hen, it is also settled that for holding that the assessment order prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue but is also erroneous, there has to be some minimal enquiry preceding such a conclusion is held in “PCIT Vs Delhi Airport Metro Express (P) Ltd,. 398 ITR 8 (Del), if the PCIT is of the view that AO did not undertake any enquiry, it becomes incumbent on the PCIT to conduct such enquiry. Where such basic exercise has not been carried out by the PCIT, the revisionary order is not sustainable. Such decision is in conformity with the following decisions : i) 1TA No. 771/CHD/2017 Shri Abhimanyii Gupta Vs.…

RICHA & CO.,DELHI vs. JCIT, SPECIAL RANGE- 17, NEW DELHI

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

ITA 3341/DEL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Dec 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Sh. G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Sh. Anubhav Sharmaricha & Co. Vs. Jcit B-34, Phase-1, Special Range-17, Mayapuri Industrial Area, New Delhi. Delhi. Pan No. Aaafr0114L (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 263Section 40

…. vs. PCIT (2022) 29 ITR (Trib) 0125 (Del)-Copy enclosed. 2. PCIT vs. M/s Kavin (India) ITA No.213 of 2019 dated 21/4/22 (P&H)-Copy enclosed. 3. ETT Ltd. vs. CIT (2019) 112 Taxmann.com 321 (Delhi). 4. CIT (Dr.) vs. Delhi Airport Metro Express Pvt. Ltd. (2017) 398 ITR 8 (Delhi). 5. ITO vs. DG Housing Projects Ltd. (2012) 343 ITR 329 (Delhi). 6. Narayan Tatu Rane vs. ITO (2016) 70 Taxmann.com 227 (Mum). 9. Ld. DR has, however, submitted that there was no error in the findings of the Ld. PCIT. He relied the Instruction No.3/2016 dated 10.03.2016 of CBDT providing for guidelines/implementation of transfer pricing pr…

HITESH GOLCHHA,RAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, RAIPUR, RAIPUR

Appeals of the assessee are partly allowed, in terms of our observations herein above

ITA 104/RPR/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur02 Nov 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.101, 102, 103 & 104/Rpr/2022 (िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years: 2014-15, 2015-16, 2016-17 & 2017-18) V. Hitesh Golchha Acit, Prop. Of Mouli Investment, Central Circle-1 Jeevan Ganga, Near Dani Bada, Raipur Budha Para, Raipur – 492 001 Chhattisgarh [Pan: Agjpg 7698 F] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri B. Subramanyam, C.A. ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent By : Shri S. K. Meena, Cit-D.R. सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 13.09.2023 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 02.11.2023

For Appellant: Shri B. Subramanyam, C.AFor Respondent: Shri S. K. Meena, CIT-D.R
Section 153ASection 263Section 43C

…in and set at rest judicial and quasi- judicial controversies as it must in other spheres of human activity. [See Parashuram Pottery Works Co. Ltd. v. ITO [1977] 106 ITR 1 (SC)]" C. PCIT Vs. Delhi Airport Metro Express Private Limited [ITA No.705/2017][(2017) 398 ITR 8(Del.H)(refer page no. 164 to 167 of paper book): Wherein it was held by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court that "for the purpose of exercising jurisdiction u./s. 263 of the Act, the conclusion that the order of the AO is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue has to be preceded by some minimal inquiry. If the PCIT is of the view that th…

HITESH GOLCHHA,RAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, RAIPUR, RAIPUR

Appeals of the assessee are partly allowed, in terms of our observations herein above

ITA 103/RPR/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur02 Nov 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.101, 102, 103 & 104/Rpr/2022 (िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years: 2014-15, 2015-16, 2016-17 & 2017-18) V. Hitesh Golchha Acit, Prop. Of Mouli Investment, Central Circle-1 Jeevan Ganga, Near Dani Bada, Raipur Budha Para, Raipur – 492 001 Chhattisgarh [Pan: Agjpg 7698 F] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri B. Subramanyam, C.A. ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent By : Shri S. K. Meena, Cit-D.R. सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 13.09.2023 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 02.11.2023

For Appellant: Shri B. Subramanyam, C.AFor Respondent: Shri S. K. Meena, CIT-D.R
Section 153ASection 263Section 43C

…in and set at rest judicial and quasi- judicial controversies as it must in other spheres of human activity. [See Parashuram Pottery Works Co. Ltd. v. ITO [1977] 106 ITR 1 (SC)]" C. PCIT Vs. Delhi Airport Metro Express Private Limited [ITA No.705/2017][(2017) 398 ITR 8(Del.H)(refer page no. 164 to 167 of paper book): Wherein it was held by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court that "for the purpose of exercising jurisdiction u./s. 263 of the Act, the conclusion that the order of the AO is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue has to be preceded by some minimal inquiry. If the PCIT is of the view that th…

HITESH GOLCHHA,RAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, RAIPUR, RAIPUR

Appeals of the assessee are partly allowed, in terms of our observations herein above

ITA 102/RPR/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur02 Nov 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.101, 102, 103 & 104/Rpr/2022 (िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years: 2014-15, 2015-16, 2016-17 & 2017-18) V. Hitesh Golchha Acit, Prop. Of Mouli Investment, Central Circle-1 Jeevan Ganga, Near Dani Bada, Raipur Budha Para, Raipur – 492 001 Chhattisgarh [Pan: Agjpg 7698 F] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri B. Subramanyam, C.A. ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent By : Shri S. K. Meena, Cit-D.R. सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 13.09.2023 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 02.11.2023

For Appellant: Shri B. Subramanyam, C.AFor Respondent: Shri S. K. Meena, CIT-D.R
Section 153ASection 263Section 43C

…in and set at rest judicial and quasi- judicial controversies as it must in other spheres of human activity. [See Parashuram Pottery Works Co. Ltd. v. ITO [1977] 106 ITR 1 (SC)]" C. PCIT Vs. Delhi Airport Metro Express Private Limited [ITA No.705/2017][(2017) 398 ITR 8(Del.H)(refer page no. 164 to 167 of paper book): Wherein it was held by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court that "for the purpose of exercising jurisdiction u./s. 263 of the Act, the conclusion that the order of the AO is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue has to be preceded by some minimal inquiry. If the PCIT is of the view that th…

HITESH GOLCHHA,RAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, RAIPUR, RAIPUR

Appeals of the assessee are partly allowed, in terms of our observations herein above

ITA 101/RPR/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur02 Nov 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.101, 102, 103 & 104/Rpr/2022 (िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years: 2014-15, 2015-16, 2016-17 & 2017-18) V. Hitesh Golchha Acit, Prop. Of Mouli Investment, Central Circle-1 Jeevan Ganga, Near Dani Bada, Raipur Budha Para, Raipur – 492 001 Chhattisgarh [Pan: Agjpg 7698 F] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri B. Subramanyam, C.A. ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent By : Shri S. K. Meena, Cit-D.R. सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 13.09.2023 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 02.11.2023

For Appellant: Shri B. Subramanyam, C.AFor Respondent: Shri S. K. Meena, CIT-D.R
Section 153ASection 263Section 43C

…in and set at rest judicial and quasi- judicial controversies as it must in other spheres of human activity. [See Parashuram Pottery Works Co. Ltd. v. ITO [1977] 106 ITR 1 (SC)]" C. PCIT Vs. Delhi Airport Metro Express Private Limited [ITA No.705/2017][(2017) 398 ITR 8(Del.H)(refer page no. 164 to 167 of paper book): Wherein it was held by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court that "for the purpose of exercising jurisdiction u./s. 263 of the Act, the conclusion that the order of the AO is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue has to be preceded by some minimal inquiry. If the PCIT is of the view that th…

MOHAK REAL ESTATE PRIVATE LIMITED,GURUGRAM, HARYANA vs. PCIT-4, DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1068/DEL/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 May 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year: 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri R.S. Singhvi, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sumit Kumar Verma, Sr. DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263

…m followed by legal 3 submissions (copy at page 5-40 of the Paper Book) but not a word thereupon has been mentioned by the Ld. PCIT. This is contrary to the law laid down by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in PCIT vs. Delhi Airport Metro Express Pvt. Ltd. (2017) 398 ITR 8 (Delhi) wherein the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court held that for purposes of exercising jurisdiction under section 263 the conclusion that the order of the AO is erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue has to be preceded by some minimal enquiry. In fact, if the Ld. PCIT is of the view that the AO did not undertake any enquiry,…

KAUR KOOKIES (P) LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. PR,CIT, DELHI-4, NEW DELHI

Appeal are allowed

ITA 1119/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 May 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Pradip Kumar Kediaassessment Year: 2017-18

Section 263Section 36

…T cannot direct the Assessing Officer to conduct further enquiry to verify and find out whether the order passed is erroneous or not.” [Emphasis supplied] 8.5 Infact Hon’ble Delhi High Court in case of PCIT vs. Delhi Airport Metro Express (P) Ltd. reported in 398 ITR 8 (Del), wherein Hon’ble Court has held as under: “10. For the purposes of exercising jurisdiction under Section 263 of the Act, the conclusion that the order of the AO is erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue has to be preceded by some minimal inquiry. In fact, if the PCIT is of the view that the AO did not undertake any inquiry,…

NIPRO INDIA CORPORATION P LTD ,SATARA vs. PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -3, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of assessee is partly allowed

ITA 488/PUN/2020[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Pune03 May 2023AY 2015-2016

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Dr. Dipak P. Ripote

For Appellant: Shri Kishor B. PhadkeFor Respondent: Shri Shishir Srivastava
Section 143(3)Section 263

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण “ए” न्यायपीठ पुणे में । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, PUNE BEFORE SHRI S.S. VISWANETHRA RAVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND DR. DIPAK P. RIPOTE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No.488/PUN/2020 धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2015-16 Nipro India Corporation Pvt. Ltd., Plot No. E-1, MIDC, Kesurdi, Khandala, Tal.-Khandala, Satara – 412802 PAN : AADCN1920C .......अपीलाथी / Appellant बिाम / V/s. PCIT – 3, Pune ……प्रत्यथी / Respondent Assessee by : Shri Kishor B. Phadke Revenue by : Shri Shishir Srivastava सुनवाई की तारीख / Date of Hearing : 11-04-2023 : 03-05-2023 घोषणा की तार…

Showing 1–20 of 63 · Page 1 of 4