Pr. CIT v. Anil Nagpal

291 CTR 272High Court2017#7397 most cited
15

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2018 to 2025.

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 144Section 14ASection 80PSection 80P(2)(a)(i)Section 80P(2)(d)

Issues it is cited on

section 13(1)(c)(ii)section 13(1)(b)section 164(2)section 13(1)(d)kelvinatorsection 164section 11(5)mere change of opinionsection 148(2)section 13(1)(c)change of opinionsection 80p(2)(a)

Judgments citing Pr. CIT v. Anil Nagpal

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PANCHKULA CIRCLE, PANCHKULA, PANCHKULA vs. THE HARYANA STATE CO-OPERATIVE AGRICULTURE AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT, PANCHKULA

Appeal is allowed

ITA 596/CHANDI/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh30 May 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: BEFORE: SHRI. RAJPALYADAV (Vice President), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

…a change of opinion, lacked fresh tangible information, was beyond the four-year limit, initiated due to impermissible audit objections, and lacked proper application of mind, relying on various judicial precedents which are as follows: (i) Anil Nagpal (2017) 291 CTR 272/ 145 DTR 209 (P&H HC) (ii) Agya Ram (2016) 96 CCH 103 (Del HC) dtd. 01.08.2016 (iii) Orient Craft Ltd. (2013) 354 ITR 536 (Delhi HC) (iv) Kelvinator of India Ltd. (320 ITR 561) (2010) (SC) (v) Asian Paints Ltd. (308 ITR 195) (2009) (Bom. HC) (vi) Asteroids Trading & Investments Pvt. Ltd. (308 ITR 190) (2009) (Bom. HC) (vii) GKN Sinter Metals Ltd.…

THE HARYANA STATE CO-OPERATIVE AGRICULTURE AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT,PANCHKULA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLEU��, PANCHKULA

Appeal is allowed

ITA 595/CHANDI/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh30 May 2025AY 2017-18

…ange of opinion, lacked fresh tangible\ninformation, was beyond the four-year limit, initiated due to\nimpermissible audit objections, and lacked proper application of\nmind, relying on various judicial precedents which are as follows:\n(i) Anil Nagpal (2017) 291 CTR 272/ 145 DTR 209 (P&H HC)\n(ii) Agya Ram (2016) 96 CCH 103 (Del HC) dtd. 01.08.2016\n(iii) Orient Craft Ltd. (2013) 354 ITR 536 (Delhi HC)\n(iv) Kelvinator of India Ltd. (320 ITR 561) (2010) (SC)\n(v) Asian Paints Ltd. (308 ITR 195) (2009) (Bom. HC)\n(vi) Asteroids Trading & Investments Pvt. Ltd. (308 ITR 190) (2009)\n(Bom. HC)\n(vii) GKN Sinter Meta…

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PANCHKULA CIRCLE, PANCHKULA, PANCHKULA vs. THE HARYANA STATE CO-OPERATIVE AGRICULTURE AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT, PANCHKULA

Appeal is allowed

ITA 594/CHANDI/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh30 May 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: SHRI. RAJPALYADAV (Vice President), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

…a change of opinion, lacked fresh tangible information, was beyond the four-year limit, initiated due to impermissible audit objections, and lacked proper application of mind, relying on various judicial precedents which are as follows: (i) Anil Nagpal (2017) 291 CTR 272/ 145 DTR 209 (P&H HC) (ii) Agya Ram (2016) 96 CCH 103 (Del HC) dtd. 01.08.2016 (iii) Orient Craft Ltd. (2013) 354 ITR 536 (Delhi HC) (iv) Kelvinator of India Ltd. (320 ITR 561) (2010) (SC) (v) Asian Paints Ltd. (308 ITR 195) (2009) (Bom. HC) (vi) Asteroids Trading & Investments Pvt. Ltd. (308 ITR 190) (2009) (Bom. HC) (vii) GKN Sinter Metals Ltd.…

THE HARYANA STATE CO-OPERATIVE AGRICULTURE AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT,PANCHKULA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE, PANCHKULA

Appeal is allowed

ITA 593/CHANDI/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh30 May 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: SHRI. RAJPALYADAV (Vice President), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

…a change of opinion, lacked fresh tangible information, was beyond the four-year limit, initiated due to impermissible audit objections, and lacked proper application of mind, relying on various judicial precedents which are as follows: (i) Anil Nagpal (2017) 291 CTR 272/ 145 DTR 209 (P&H HC) (ii) Agya Ram (2016) 96 CCH 103 (Del HC) dtd. 01.08.2016 (iii) Orient Craft Ltd. (2013) 354 ITR 536 (Delhi HC) (iv) Kelvinator of India Ltd. (320 ITR 561) (2010) (SC) (v) Asian Paints Ltd. (308 ITR 195) (2009) (Bom. HC) (vi) Asteroids Trading & Investments Pvt. Ltd. (308 ITR 190) (2009) (Bom. HC) (vii) GKN Sinter Metals Ltd.…

THE HARYANA STATE CO-OPERATIVE AGRICULTURE AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT,PANCHKULA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE, PANCHKULA

Appeal is allowed

ITA 592/CHANDI/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh30 May 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: BEFORE: SHRI. RAJPALYADAV (Vice President), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

…a change of opinion, lacked fresh tangible information, was beyond the four-year limit, initiated due to impermissible audit objections, and lacked proper application of mind, relying on various judicial precedents which are as follows: (i) Anil Nagpal (2017) 291 CTR 272/ 145 DTR 209 (P&H HC) (ii) Agya Ram (2016) 96 CCH 103 (Del HC) dtd. 01.08.2016 (iii) Orient Craft Ltd. (2013) 354 ITR 536 (Delhi HC) (iv) Kelvinator of India Ltd. (320 ITR 561) (2010) (SC) (v) Asian Paints Ltd. (308 ITR 195) (2009) (Bom. HC) (vi) Asteroids Trading & Investments Pvt. Ltd. (308 ITR 190) (2009) (Bom. HC) (vii) GKN Sinter Metals Ltd.…

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PANCHKULA CIRCLE, PANCHKULA, PANCHKULA vs. THE HARYANA STATE CO-OPERATIVE AGRICULTURE AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT, PANCHKULA

Appeal is allowed

ITA 591/CHANDI/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh30 May 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: SHRI. RAJPALYADAV (Vice President), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

…a change of opinion, lacked fresh tangible information, was beyond the four-year limit, initiated due to impermissible audit objections, and lacked proper application of mind, relying on various judicial precedents which are as follows: (i) Anil Nagpal (2017) 291 CTR 272/ 145 DTR 209 (P&H HC) (ii) Agya Ram (2016) 96 CCH 103 (Del HC) dtd. 01.08.2016 (iii) Orient Craft Ltd. (2013) 354 ITR 536 (Delhi HC) (iv) Kelvinator of India Ltd. (320 ITR 561) (2010) (SC) (v) Asian Paints Ltd. (308 ITR 195) (2009) (Bom. HC) (vi) Asteroids Trading & Investments Pvt. Ltd. (308 ITR 190) (2009) (Bom. HC) (vii) GKN Sinter Metals Ltd.…

THE HARYANA STATE CO-OPERATIVE AGRICULTURE AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT,PANCHKULA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE,, PANCHKULA

Appeal is allowed

ITA 590/CHANDI/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh30 May 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: BEFORE: SHRI. RAJPALYADAV (Vice President), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

…a change of opinion, lacked fresh tangible information, was beyond the four-year limit, initiated due to impermissible audit objections, and lacked proper application of mind, relying on various judicial precedents which are as follows: (i) Anil Nagpal (2017) 291 CTR 272/ 145 DTR 209 (P&H HC) (ii) Agya Ram (2016) 96 CCH 103 (Del HC) dtd. 01.08.2016 (iii) Orient Craft Ltd. (2013) 354 ITR 536 (Delhi HC) (iv) Kelvinator of India Ltd. (320 ITR 561) (2010) (SC) (v) Asian Paints Ltd. (308 ITR 195) (2009) (Bom. HC) (vi) Asteroids Trading & Investments Pvt. Ltd. (308 ITR 190) (2009) (Bom. HC) (vii) GKN Sinter Metals Ltd.…

THE HARYANA STATE CO-OPERATIVE AGRICULTURE AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT,PANCHKULA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE, PANCHKULA, PANCHKULA

Appeal is allowed

ITA 589/CHANDI/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh30 May 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: BEFORE: SHRI. RAJPALYADAV (Vice President), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

…a change of opinion, lacked fresh tangible information, was beyond the four-year limit, initiated due to impermissible audit objections, and lacked proper application of mind, relying on various judicial precedents which are as follows: (i) Anil Nagpal (2017) 291 CTR 272/ 145 DTR 209 (P&H HC) (ii) Agya Ram (2016) 96 CCH 103 (Del HC) dtd. 01.08.2016 (iii) Orient Craft Ltd. (2013) 354 ITR 536 (Delhi HC) (iv) Kelvinator of India Ltd. (320 ITR 561) (2010) (SC) (v) Asian Paints Ltd. (308 ITR 195) (2009) (Bom. HC) (vi) Asteroids Trading & Investments Pvt. Ltd. (308 ITR 190) (2009) (Bom. HC) (vii) GKN Sinter Metals Ltd.…

THE HARYANA STATE CO-OPERATIVE AGRICULTURE AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT,PANCHKULA vs. DCIT,CIRCLE, PANCHKULA, PANCHKULA

Appeal is allowed

ITA 588/CHANDI/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh30 May 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: BEFORE: SHRI. RAJPALYADAV (Vice President), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

…a change of opinion, lacked fresh tangible information, was beyond the four-year limit, initiated due to impermissible audit objections, and lacked proper application of mind, relying on various judicial precedents which are as follows: (i) Anil Nagpal (2017) 291 CTR 272/ 145 DTR 209 (P&H HC) (ii) Agya Ram (2016) 96 CCH 103 (Del HC) dtd. 01.08.2016 (iii) Orient Craft Ltd. (2013) 354 ITR 536 (Delhi HC) (iv) Kelvinator of India Ltd. (320 ITR 561) (2010) (SC) (v) Asian Paints Ltd. (308 ITR 195) (2009) (Bom. HC) (vi) Asteroids Trading & Investments Pvt. Ltd. (308 ITR 190) (2009) (Bom. HC) (vii) GKN Sinter Metals Ltd.…

LAKHMI CHAND YADAV,FARIDABAD vs. ITO, WARD-1(4), FARIDABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed and the substantial questions of law are answered against the revenue

ITA 516/DEL/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Dec 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. M. Balaganeshita No. 516/Del/2020 : Asstt. Year : 2011-12 Lakhmi Chand Yadav, Vs Income Tax Officer, Village Mirzapur Hardet Haveli Ward-1(4), Mujehri, Faridabad, Haryana-121004 Faridabad-121001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaepy4744P Assessee By : Sh. M. K. Gupta, Ca Revenue By : Sh. B. S. Anand, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 25.11.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 03.12.2024 Order Per Satbeer Singh Godara: This Assessee’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2011-12, Arises Against The Order Of Cit(A), Faridabad Dated 28.11.2019 In Case No. 10339/2018-19 In Proceedings U/S 143(3)/147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”).

For Appellant: Sh. M. K. Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Sh. B. S. Anand, Sr. Dr
Section 133ASection 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 260A

…236 (Bom) (2011) 336 ITR 136 (2018) 99 taxmann.com 312 (SC) (2022) 138 taxmann.com 296 (Bombay) (2013) 355 ITR 172 (Guj.) (2012) 344 ITR 641 (Chattisgarh) (2008) 306 ITR 343 (Raj) (2017) 394 ITR 733 (Mad) (2016) 387 ITR 416 (Del) (2003) 259 ITR 19 (SC) (2017) 291 CTR 272 (P&H) ITAT NO. 143 OF 2021 said decision. It is further submitted by Mr. Bagaria that in the reasons for reopening there was no allegation made against the assessee that they failed to fully and truly disclose all material particulars for the purpose of completion of the assessment and therefore, the reopening itself is a clear case of change of…

SURESHKUMAR JETHANAND RAWLANI,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, 17(3)(4) , MUMBAI

ITA 1054/MUM/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jul 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara

For Appellant: Shri Tanzil R. Padvekar, A.RFor Respondent: Dr. Kishor Dhule, CIT D.R. &
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 246Section 4Section 5Section 56(2)(vii)Section 80

…236 (Bom) (2011) 336 ITR 136 (2018) 99 taxmann.com 312 (SC) (2022) 138 taxmann.com 296 (Bombay) (2013) 355 ITR 172 (Guj.) (2012) 344 ITR 641 (Chattisgarh) (2008) 306 ITR 343 (Raj) (2017) 394 ITR 733 (Mad) (2016) 387 ITR 416 (Del) (2003) 259 ITR 19 (SC) (2017) 291 CTR 272 (P&H) said decision. It is further submitted by Mr. Bagaria that in the reasons for reopening there was no allegation made against the assessee that they failed to fully and truly disclose all material particulars for the purpose of completion of the assessment and therefore, the reopening itself is a clear case of change of opinion. In any event…

SURESHKUMAR JETHANAND RAWLANI,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, 17(3)(4), MUMBAI

ITA 1053/MUM/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jul 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara

For Appellant: Shri Tanzil R. Padvekar, A.RFor Respondent: Dr. Kishor Dhule, CIT D.R. &
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 246Section 4Section 5Section 56(2)(vii)Section 80

…236 (Bom) (2011) 336 ITR 136 (2018) 99 taxmann.com 312 (SC) (2022) 138 taxmann.com 296 (Bombay) (2013) 355 ITR 172 (Guj.) (2012) 344 ITR 641 (Chattisgarh) (2008) 306 ITR 343 (Raj) (2017) 394 ITR 733 (Mad) (2016) 387 ITR 416 (Del) (2003) 259 ITR 19 (SC) (2017) 291 CTR 272 (P&H) said decision. It is further submitted by Mr. Bagaria that in the reasons for reopening there was no allegation made against the assessee that they failed to fully and truly disclose all material particulars for the purpose of completion of the assessment and therefore, the reopening itself is a clear case of change of opinion. In any event…

SUNIL PAGARIA,UDAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD-2(1), UDAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 198/JODH/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur09 Oct 2023AY 2013-14
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 234Section 54F

…d, yes- Whether further, in view of fact that both properties purchased by assessee were located in same geographical area, assessee would be entitled for exemption provided under section 54F- Held, yes (Paras 7.1, 7.2 and 7.4] [In favour of assessee). [2017] 291 CTR 272 (P & H); PCIT v/s Anil Nagpal Section 54F of the Income-tax Act, 1961 Capital gains Exemption, in case of investment in residential house (Reassessment) Assessment year 2007-08- Where issue as to whether property that was purchased by assessee constituted one flat or two flats for purpose of exemption under section 54F was examined by Assessing O…

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION) , KOLKATA vs. B.P.PODDAR FOUNDATION FOR EDUCATION

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed and the

ITAT/143/2021HC Calcutta13 Sept 2022

Bench: HON'BLE JUSTICE T. S. SIVAGNANAM,HON'BLE JUSTICE HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA

Section 11(5)Section 13(1)(b)Section 13(1)(c)Section 13(1)(d)Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 143Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148

…2 (2022) 138 taxmann.com 296 (Bombay) 13 (2013) 355 ITR 172 (Guj.) 14 (2012) 344 ITR 641 (Chattisgarh) 15 (2008) 306 ITR 343 (Raj) 16 T.C. (A) No. 1548 of 2008 17 (2017) 394 ITR 733 (Mad) 18 (2016) 387 ITR 416 (Del) 19 (2003) 259 ITR 19 (SC) 20 (2017) 291 CTR 272 (P&H) ITAT NO. 143 OF 2021 Page 8 of 16 said decision. It is further submitted by Mr. Bagaria that in the reasons for reopening there was no allegation made against the assessee that they failed to fully and truly disclose all material particulars for the purpose of completion of the assessment and therefore, the reopening itself is a c…

M/S GREATER MOHALI AREA DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,MOHALI vs. DCIT, C-6(1), MOHALI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is hereby dismissed

ITA 1560/CHANDI/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh22 May 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. B.R.R. Kumarassessment Year : 2009-10

For Appellant: Sh. Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. Gulshan Raj, CIT DR
Section 139Section 142Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…ered the same and formed a view also. The Hon'ble Delhi High Court held so in the case of CIT vs Usha International Ltd.(2012) 348 ITR 485 (Del) which has been relied upon by the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of Pr. CIT vs Anil Nagpal (2017) 291 CTR 272(P&H) which has been relied upon by the Ld.Counsel for the assessee. Moreover, the reopening in this case, as discussed above, is hit by the first proviso to section 147 of the Act. 23. Considering the above discussion we do not find any justification for the authorities below to justify the reopening of the assessment. The reopening is thus clear…

Pr. CIT v. Anil Nagpal (291 CTR 272) — Cited in 15 Judgments | BharatTax