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

398 ITR 8High Court2017#1800 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 366,005 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
Read the full judgment

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.

Priyanka, Sirsa vs. Pr.CIT, Rohtak

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 152/CHANDI/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh19 Jan 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Vikram Singh Yadavआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.149/Chd/2021 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year :2016-17 Sh. Rajeev Goyal Pr. Commissioner Of Income बनाम M/S R.K. Associates, Tax, Rohtak B.G. Complex Near Ganesh Dharam Kanta, Sirsa -125055, Haryana "थायीलेखासं./Pan No: Aibpg7289A अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 143(3)Section 263

…der of assessment and that in absence of an ‘error’, invocation of section 263 of the Act was not in accordance with law. Reliance was placed on the judgment of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of PCIT vs. Delhi Airport Metro Express (P) Ltd. reported in 398 ITR 8. 5.9 It was further submitted by the Ld. AR that Explanation 2 to section 263 of the Act does not authorise or give unfettered powers to the Ld. Commissioner to revise each and every order and, is not a substitute to the precondition u/s 263(1) of the Act. Reliance was placed on the following judgments: i) 70 taxmann.com 227 (Mum) Narayan Tatu R…

Priya Goyal, Sirsa vs. Pr.CIT, Rohtak

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 151/CHANDI/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh19 Jan 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Vikram Singh Yadavआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.149/Chd/2021 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year :2016-17 Sh. Rajeev Goyal Pr. Commissioner Of Income बनाम M/S R.K. Associates, Tax, Rohtak B.G. Complex Near Ganesh Dharam Kanta, Sirsa -125055, Haryana "थायीलेखासं./Pan No: Aibpg7289A अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 143(3)Section 263

…der of assessment and that in absence of an ‘error’, invocation of section 263 of the Act was not in accordance with law. Reliance was placed on the judgment of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of PCIT vs. Delhi Airport Metro Express (P) Ltd. reported in 398 ITR 8. 5.9 It was further submitted by the Ld. AR that Explanation 2 to section 263 of the Act does not authorise or give unfettered powers to the Ld. Commissioner to revise each and every order and, is not a substitute to the precondition u/s 263(1) of the Act. Reliance was placed on the following judgments: i) 70 taxmann.com 227 (Mum) Narayan Tatu R…

M/S Pardeep Ispat(P) Ltd., Sirsa vs. Pr.CIT, Rohtak

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 150/CHANDI/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh19 Jan 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Vikram Singh Yadavआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.149/Chd/2021 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year :2016-17 Sh. Rajeev Goyal Pr. Commissioner Of Income बनाम M/S R.K. Associates, Tax, Rohtak B.G. Complex Near Ganesh Dharam Kanta, Sirsa -125055, Haryana "थायीलेखासं./Pan No: Aibpg7289A अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 143(3)Section 263

…der of assessment and that in absence of an ‘error’, invocation of section 263 of the Act was not in accordance with law. Reliance was placed on the judgment of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of PCIT vs. Delhi Airport Metro Express (P) Ltd. reported in 398 ITR 8. 5.9 It was further submitted by the Ld. AR that Explanation 2 to section 263 of the Act does not authorise or give unfettered powers to the Ld. Commissioner to revise each and every order and, is not a substitute to the precondition u/s 263(1) of the Act. Reliance was placed on the following judgments: i) 70 taxmann.com 227 (Mum) Narayan Tatu R…

Shri Rajeev Goyal, Sirsa vs. Pr.CIT, Rohtak

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 149/CHANDI/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh19 Jan 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Vikram Singh Yadavआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.149/Chd/2021 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year :2016-17 Sh. Rajeev Goyal Pr. Commissioner Of Income बनाम M/S R.K. Associates, Tax, Rohtak B.G. Complex Near Ganesh Dharam Kanta, Sirsa -125055, Haryana "थायीलेखासं./Pan No: Aibpg7289A अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 143(3)Section 263

…der of assessment and that in absence of an ‘error’, invocation of section 263 of the Act was not in accordance with law. Reliance was placed on the judgment of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of PCIT vs. Delhi Airport Metro Express (P) Ltd. reported in 398 ITR 8. 5.9 It was further submitted by the Ld. AR that Explanation 2 to section 263 of the Act does not authorise or give unfettered powers to the Ld. Commissioner to revise each and every order and, is not a substitute to the precondition u/s 263(1) of the Act. Reliance was placed on the following judgments: i) 70 taxmann.com 227 (Mum) Narayan Tatu R…

Sangram Keshari Samantaray, Bhubaneswar vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-2, Bhubaneswar

ITA 12/CTK/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack28 Oct 2021AY 2012-13
For Appellant: Shri D.Parida/C.Parida, ARFor Respondent: Shri M.K.Gautam, CITDR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 263

…आयकर अपीऱीय अधिकरण, कटक न्यायपीठ, कटक IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CUTTACK BENCH, CUTTACK BEFORE SHRI C.M. GARG, JM & SHRI MANISH BORAD, AM आयकर अपीऱ सं./ITA No.12/CTK/2020 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2012-2013) Sangram Keshari Samantaray, Vs Pr.CIT-2, Bhubaneswar Plot No.38, Chintamaniswar Area, Bhubaneswar-751006 PAN No. : BBOPS 7915 N (अऩीलाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. ननधाारिती की ओर से /Assessee by : Shri D.Parida/C.Parida, AR िाजस्व की ओर से /Revenue by : Shri M.K.Gautam, CITDR सुनवाई की तािीख / Date of Hearing : 20/10/2021 घोषणा की तािीख/Date of Pronouncement : 28/10/2021 आदेश /…

Kamlesh Jain & Sons HUF, Raipur vs. Income Tax Officer-3(2), Raipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 26/RPR/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur29 Sept 2021AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri N.K. Choudhryassessment Year: 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri R.B. Doshi, C.AFor Respondent: Shri P.K. Mishra, CIT D.R
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 54F

…es Ltd. vs. CIT (2019) 55 CCH - ITO vs. K.C. Gopalan (2000) 162 CTR 566 (Ker.) - Yatin Prakash Telang vs. ITO (2018) 171 ITD 705 (Mum.) - Magic Landcon LLP & Anr. Vs. Pr. CIT (2020) 204 TTJ 785 (Del.) - Pr. CIT vs. Delhi Airport Metro Express P. Ltd. (2017) 398 ITR 8 (Delhi) - Mumbai ITAT in Narayana Tatu Rane vs. ITO – ITA No.2690/Mum/2016 – (2016) 47 CCH 0309 (Mumb. Trib.) - DCIT vs. Kingpin Investment & Finance P. Ltd. in ITA No.4447/Mum/2007 order dated 20.07.2016 of ‘A’ Bench of ITAT - Mool Chand Mahesh Chand vs. CIT (1978) 115 ITR 1, 8 (All) - CIT vs. Late Sunder Lal (1974) 96 ITR 310, 314 (All.) 12. Th…

M/S Vimla Infrastructure (India) Private Limited, Raipur vs. Pr. Commissioner of Incometax-1, Raipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 18/RPR/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur29 Sept 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri N. K. Choudhryआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 18/Rpr/2021) ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2015-16)

For Appellant: Shri P. K. Mishra, CIT.DR
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 80Section 80GSection 80I

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “RAIPUR” BENCH, RAIPUR BEFORE SHRI PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI N. K. CHOUDHRY, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 18/RPR/2021) ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2015-16) M/s. Vimla Infrastructure Pr. Commissioner of बनाम/ (India) Private Limited Income Tax -1 Vs. 1st Floor, Mohsin Market, Central Revenue Gurunanak Chowk, M. G. Building, Civil Lines, Road, Raipur (CG) - 492001 Raipur (CG)-492001 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./PAN/GIR No. : AACCV2677D .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) Shri Nikhilesh Begani, C.A. अपीलाथ" ओर से /Appellant by : Shri…

P I Industries Limited, Udaipur vs. Pr. CIT, Udaipur

ITA 4/JODH/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur08 Sept 2021AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Vikram Singh Yadavassessment Year:2016-17 Pi Industries Limited, Vs. Pr.Cit, Udaisagar Road, Udaipur. Udaipur-313001. Pan No. Aabcp 2183 M

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 263Section 32ASection 35(1)(iv)Section 80ISection 92C

…ch of ITAT had occasion to examine this issue in the case of M/s Amira Pure Foods Private Limited vs. PCIT in ITA No. 3205/Del/2017, in which following the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Delhi Airport Metro Express Ltd. reported in (2017) 398 ITR 8 (Delhi) in which it has been held as under: “It is seen, in the order dt. 30th March 2016, the Principal CIT has proceeded by setting out the contents of the show-cause notice and the contents of the reply given by the assessee. It appears that no inquiry, as such, was undertaken by the Principal CIT to come to the conclusion that the original asse…

Secure Meters Limited, Udaipur vs. Pr. CIT, Udaipur

ITA 2/JODH/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur02 Sept 2021AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Vikram Singh Yadavassessment Year:2016-17 Secure Meters Limited, Vs. Pr.Cit, E-Class, Pratap Nagar Udaipur. Industrial Area, Udaipur-313001. Pan No. Aaccs 8785 M

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 263Section 43ASection 92C

…the case of M/s Amira Pure Foods Private Limited vs. 14 ITA 02/Jodh/2021 Secure Meters Ltd. Vs PCIT PCIT in ITA No. 3205/Del/2017, in which following the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Delhi Airport Metro Express Ltd. reported in (2017) 398 ITR 8 (Delhi) in which it has been held as under : It is seen, in the order dt. 30th March 2016, the Principal CIT has proceeded by setting out the contents of the show-cause notice and the contents of the reply given by the assessee. It appears that no inquiry, as such, was undertaken by the Principal CIT to come to the conclusion that the original asse…

M/S Bharat Agro Industries, Raipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(3), Raipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 263/RPR/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur13 Aug 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri N. K. Choudhryआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 263/Rpr/2017) ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13) बनाम/ M/S. Bharat Agro Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(3), Raipur Industries Vs. Near Bajrang Power, Rajiv Gandhi Ward, Urla Sarora Road, Urla Industrial Area, Raipur (C.G.) "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aahfb8665M (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) ..

For Appellant: Shri R. B. Doshi, A.RFor Respondent: Shri P. K. Mishra, CIT.DR
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 40A(3)

…) 401 ITR 486 (Del.). 7.2 It is further claimed that the PCIT was himself under some obligations to carry out the minimal enquiry as held in: Magic Landcon LLP & Anr. Vs. Pr.CIT (2020) 204 TTJ 785 (Del.); Pr.CIT vs. Delhi Airport Metro Express P. Ltd. (2017) 398 ITR 8 (Delhi);& Mumbai ITAT in Narayan Tatu Rane vs. ITO in ITA No. 2690/Mum/2016. 7.3 We find merit in the plea of the assessee. In the course of hearing, the learned counsel for the assessee in response to an enquiry from the bench presented cassia tora seeds for which expenses were incurred. The Cassia tora seeds, which is used for the business of the…

Nkb Infrastructure (P) Ltd, Rewari vs. Pr. CIT, Faridabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 450/DEL/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Jul 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri O.P. Kant[Through Video Conferencing] Assessment Year: 2015-16

Section 143(3)Section 263

…8 The learned Counsel submitted that in absence of an ‘error’ invocation of section 263 of the Act is not in accordance with law. 7 In support of above ratio, the learned Counsel relied on the following decisions: 1. PCIT Vs Delhi Airport Metro Express P Ltd 398 ITR 8 (Delhi) 2. ITO Vs DG Housing Projects Ltd 343 ITR 329 (Delhi) 3. PCIT Vs Vinita Chaurasia 394 ITR 758 (Delhi) 4. ITA No. 771/CHD/2017 Shri Abhimanyu Gupta Vs PCIT 5. Narayan Tatu Rane Vs ITO, 70 taxmann.com 227 5. On the contrary, the learned DR referred to Explanation-2(i) below the section 263 of the Act. She submitted that in view of the Explan…

Roop Kumar Bansal, Gurgaon vs. Pr, CIT (Central), Gurgaon

In the result, ITA.No.383/Del

ITA 386/DEL/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 May 2021AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri O.P.Kant

For Appellant: And Shri Lalit Mohan, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Satpal Gulati, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153B(1)(b)Section 263

…ed PCIT are not valid. The Learned PCIT has to be proceeded by some minimal enquiry which has not been done in the present case and relied upon Judgment of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of PCIT s., Delhi Airport Metro Express Private Limited [2017] 398 ITR 8 (Del.). There is no lack of enquiry or lack of investigation on the part of the A.O. Mere allegation of wrong opinion cannot confer jurisdiction by the Learned PCIT. The A.O. passed the assessment order after taking into consideration submissions of the assessee and documentary evidences 128 ITA.Nos.383, 384, 385 & 386/Del./2021 Smt. Abha Bansal,…

Shri Basant Bansal, Gurgaon vs. Pr, CIT (Central), Gurgaon

In the result, ITA.No.383/Del

ITA 385/DEL/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 May 2021AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri O.P.Kant

For Appellant: And Shri Lalit Mohan, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Satpal Gulati, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153B(1)(b)Section 263

…ed PCIT are not valid. The Learned PCIT has to be proceeded by some minimal enquiry which has not been done in the present case and relied upon Judgment of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of PCIT s., Delhi Airport Metro Express Private Limited [2017] 398 ITR 8 (Del.). There is no lack of enquiry or lack of investigation on the part of the A.O. Mere allegation of wrong opinion cannot confer jurisdiction by the Learned PCIT. The A.O. passed the assessment order after taking into consideration submissions of the assessee and documentary evidences 128 ITA.Nos.383, 384, 385 & 386/Del./2021 Smt. Abha Bansal,…

Pankaj Bansal, Gurgaon vs. Pr, CIT (Central), Gurgaon

In the result, ITA.No.383/Del

ITA 384/DEL/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 May 2021AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri O.P.Kant

For Appellant: And Shri Lalit Mohan, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Satpal Gulati, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153B(1)(b)Section 263

…ed PCIT are not valid. The Learned PCIT has to be proceeded by some minimal enquiry which has not been done in the present case and relied upon Judgment of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of PCIT s., Delhi Airport Metro Express Private Limited [2017] 398 ITR 8 (Del.). There is no lack of enquiry or lack of investigation on the part of the A.O. Mere allegation of wrong opinion cannot confer jurisdiction by the Learned PCIT. The A.O. passed the assessment order after taking into consideration submissions of the assessee and documentary evidences 128 ITA.Nos.383, 384, 385 & 386/Del./2021 Smt. Abha Bansal,…

Abha Bansal, Gurgaon vs. PCIT, Central, Gurgaon

In the result, ITA.No.383/Del

ITA 383/DEL/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 May 2021AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri O.P.Kant

For Appellant: And Shri Lalit Mohan, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Satpal Gulati, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153B(1)(b)Section 263

…ed PCIT are not valid. The Learned PCIT has to be proceeded by some minimal enquiry which has not been done in the present case and relied upon Judgment of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of PCIT s., Delhi Airport Metro Express Private Limited [2017] 398 ITR 8 (Del.). There is no lack of enquiry or lack of investigation on the part of the A.O. Mere allegation of wrong opinion cannot confer jurisdiction by the Learned PCIT. The A.O. passed the assessment order after taking into consideration submissions of the assessee and documentary evidences 128 ITA.Nos.383, 384, 385 & 386/Del./2021 Smt. Abha Bansal,…

Mr. Abhisar Sharma, Noida vs. DCIT, New Delhi

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

ITA 3285/DEL/2015[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Jan 2021AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kambleassessment Year: 2005-06 Mr. Abhisar Sharma, Vs Dcit, B-602, Plot No.F-2, Circle-64(1), The Crescent, B-Block, Room No.314, Sector-50, Pratyakshkar Bhawan, Noida. Civic Centre, New Delhi. Pan: Aigps3840N (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Gautam Jain, Advocate & Shri Lalit Mohan, Ca Revenue By : Shri J.K. Mishra, Cit-Dr. Date Of Hearing : 12.01.2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 27.01.2021 Order Per R.K. Panda, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 30Th March, 2015 Passed U/S 263 Of The It Act By The Pcit-22, Delhi, Relating To Assessment Year 2005-06. 2. Facts Of The Case, In Brief, Are That The Assessee Is An Individual & Filed His Return Of Income On 22Nd July, 2005 Declaring Income Of Rs.9,00,355/-. The Assessee In The Return Of Income Had Declared Income From Salary At Rs.9,81,964/- & Loss From House Property At Rs.81,609/-. The Return Was Processed U/S 143(1) Of The Act On 4Th July, 2006 At The Same Income. Subsequently, The Case Of The Assessee Was Reopened By Issue Of Notice U/S 148 Of The Act Dated 27Th March, 2012 After Obtaining Prior Approval Of The Addl. Cit, Range-7, New Delhi, Vide His Letter No.526 Dated 27Th March, 2012. The Ao Completed The Assessment U/S 147/143(3) On 28Th March, 2013, Determining The Income Of The Assessee At Rs.11,03,270/- As Against The Returned Income Of Rs.9,00,355/- Wherein He Made The Following Additions:-

For Appellant: Shri Gautam Jain, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri J.K. Mishra, CIT-DR
Section 127Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 17Section 17(2)Section 263Section 68Section 69C

…iv) CIT vs. Max India Ltd., 295 ITR 282; v) ITO vs. DG Housing Projects Ltd., 343 ITR 329 (Del); vi) Director of Income-tax vs. Jyoti Foundation, 357 ITR 388 (Del); vii) PCIT vs. Vinita Chaurasia, 394 ITR 758 (Del); viii) Delhi Airport Metro Express (P) Ltd., 398 ITR 8 (Del) ix) Shri Abhimanyu Gupta vs. PCIT, ITA No. 771/CHD/2017; x) Narayan Tatu Rane vs. ITO 70 taxmann.com 227 (Mumbai Trib.); xi) Jeewanlal Ltd. vs. Addl. ICT, 108 ITR 407 (Cal); xii) B&A Plantation & Industries Ltd. vs. CIT, 290 ITR 395 (Gau); xiii) CIT vs. Sunbeam Auto Ltd., 332 ITR 167 (Del); xiv) CIT vs. Wear Exports Ltd., 341 ITR 166 (Del); x…

Arihant Technology Pvt Ltd, New Delhi vs. Pr. CIT, New Delhi

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

ITA 5473/DEL/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Mar 2020AY 2009-10

Bench: Sh. R. K. Panda & Sh. K. N. Charyassessment Year: 2009-10 Arihant Technology Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Pr. Cit Wz-284B, Lane-11, Lajwanti New Delhi Garden, New Delhi Pan No. Aadca6471D (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 131Section 133Section 142Section 148Section 263

…s share holders. Since AO has taken a plausible view, therefore, it cannot be said that the order of the AO is erroneous. 25. We find the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Pr. CIT v. Delhi Airport Metro Express (P.) Ltd. [2018] 99 taxmann.com 382/[2017] 398 ITR 8 has held 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 enquiry. If the PCIT is of the view that the AO did not undertake any enquiry, it becomes incumbent incumbent on the PCIT to conduct such…

Sleek International, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT 32(3), Mumbai

The appeal stands allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 3327/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Feb 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri C.N. Prasad, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: S/Shri Vijay Mehta & Govind Jhaveri-For Respondent: Shri Sushil Kumar Poddar - Ld.CIT-DR
Section 263

…le that there must be material to justify the Commissioner's finding that the order of the assessment was erroneous insofar as it was prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. The Hon’ble Delhi High Court in Pr.CIT V/s Delhi Airport Metro Express Pvt. Ltd. (398 ITR 8 05/09/2017) has held that for the purposes of exercising jurisdiction u/s 263, the conclusion that the order of the Assessing Officer is erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue, has to be preceded by some minimal inquiry. In fact, if the Principal Commissioner of Income-tax is of the view that the Assessing Officer did not underta…

Shugan Chadra Kothari Trust, New Delhi vs. CIT(E), New Delhi

In the result Appeal of assessee allowed

ITA 4982/DEL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Feb 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri R.K. Panda

For Appellant: Shri R.S. Singhvi, And Shri Satyajit Goel, AdvocatesFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Goel, CIT-D.R
Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 2(15)Section 263

…ous and prejudicial to the interests of revenue. In support of the contention, he has relied upon Judgments of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of DIT vs., Jyoti Foundation 357 ITR 388 (Del.) and Pr. CIT vs. Delhi Airport Metro Express Private Limited 398 ITR 8 (Del.) 7. On the other hand, Ld. D.R. relied upon the impugned order and submitted that assessee failed to explain source of the cash deposit in the Bank Account and filed comments of the A.O, in which it is highlighted that no enquiry have been made on these issues. The Ld. D.R. filed queries raised by the A.O. and copy of the Order Sheet on reco…

Seth Madan Lal Palriwala Foundation, New Delhi vs. CIT(Exemption), New Delhi

ITA 4670/DEL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Jan 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Kuldip Singh

For Appellant: Dr. Shashwat Bajpai, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri S.S. Rana, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 263

…nd prejudicial to the interest 19 ITA No.4670/Del./2019 of the Revenue. We are of the considered view that the impugned order passed u/s 263 is not sustainable. 31. Hon’ble Delhi High Court in case of PCIT vs. Delhi Airport Metro Express (P.) Ltd. (2017) 398 ITR 8 (Delhi) held that in case, ld. CIT is of the view that AO did not undertake any enquiry, it becomes incumbent on the CIT to conduct such enquiry himself by returning following findings :- “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 inte…