How many judgments cite Rajmandir Estates Private Limited v. Pr. CIT?

131 judgments on BharatTax cite Rajmandir Estates Private Limited v. Pr. CIT (386 ITR 162), spanning 2017 to 2026.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does Rajmandir Estates Private Limited v. Pr. CIT come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 263, Section 143(3), Section 142(1), Section 143(2), Section 144B, Section 147.

Rajmandir Estates Private Limited v. Pr. CIT

386 ITR 162High Court2016#782 most cited

What is Rajmandir Estates Private Limited v. Pr. CIT authority for?

The Principal Commissioner can revise an assessment under Section 263 if the Assessing Officer's inquiry into share application money or cash credits under Section 68 was inadequate, constituting an order erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue. The primary onus to prove the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of such credits remains with the assessee.

131

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,418 Indian tax judgments — from 2017 to 2026.

Also referred to as

Rajmandir Estates Private Limited · Pr. CIT · Section 263 · Section 68 · inadequate enquiry · erroneous and prejudicial to revenue · share application money · cash credits · onus of proof · Principal Commissioner of Income-tax · revision proceedings · non-application of mind

Sections most often in play

Section 263 Section 143(3)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144B Section 147 Section 68 Section 69

Issues it is cited on

prejudicial to interest of revenue inadequate enquiry section 263(1)lack of enquiry malabar industrial non application of mind erroneous and prejudicial principal commissioner of income-tax section 119 share application money section 263 section 26

Judgments citing Rajmandir Estates Private Limited v. Pr. CIT

Arm Infra & Utilities Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Pr.Commissioner of Income Tax Range-6, Mumbai

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 2212/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Nov 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman

For Appellant: Shri P.J. Pardiwala a/wFor Respondent: Shri Rajiv Harit

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 56(2)(viib)

…2018] 96 taxmann.com 255 (SC)/[2018] 257 Taxman 262 (SC) and Royal Rich Developers (P.) Ltd. v. Pr C1T [2019] 108  taxmann.com 382 (Bombay). This plea is also rejected in Rajmandir Estates (P.) Ltd. v. Principal Commissioner of income-tax, Kolkata-IIl [2016] 386 ITR 162 (Calcutta)/ [2016] 70 taxmann.com 124 (Calcutta) affirmed in [2017] 77 taxmann.com 285 (SC). Further also, similar additions have been confirmed in by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Pr C1T (Central)-l v. NRA Iron & Steel (P.) Ltd. [2019] 103 taxmann.com 48 (SC/[2019] 412 ITR 161 (SC). 19 Arm Infra & Utilities Pvt. Ltd. 6. Similar actions…

Pawansut Media Services Pvt Ltd, New Delhi vs. Pr. CIT - 7, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 534/DEL/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Oct 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Amit Shukla

For Appellant: Shri Kapil Goel, Advocate &For Respondent: Smt. Sushma Singh, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 56(2)(viia)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCHES “F” : DELHI [THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING] BEFORE SHRI R.K. PANDA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA.No.534/Del./2021 Assessment Year 2015-2016 Pawansut Media Services Pvt. Ltd., Delhi – 110019. The Principal PAN AAECP2155J Commissioner of Income vs. C/o. Shri Kapil Goel, Tax-7, C.R. Building, Advocate, F-26/124, ITO, I.P. Estate, New Delhi - 110 002. Sector-7, Rohini, Delhi – 110 085. (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : Shri Kapil Goel, Advocate & Shri Sandeep Goel, Advocate For Revenue : Smt. Sushma Singh, CIT-DR Date of Hearing : 19…

M/S. Kanha Capital Services Ltd., Delhi vs. Pr. CIT- 5, New Delhi

ITA 2916/DEL/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Oct 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing)

For Appellant: N o n eFor Respondent: Ms. Sunita Singh[CIT] – D.R

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 263

…. It is this order which is upheld by the High Court. We see no reason to interfere with the order of the High Court. The Special Leave Petitions are dismissed.” 14. Further honourable Calcutta High Court in Rajmandir estate private limited versus PCIT [2016] 386 ITR 162 (Cal) has also dealt with identical issue and upheld the action u/s 263 of the income tax act holding as Under:- “(21) After hearing the learned advocates, we are of the opinion that the following questions arise for consideration : (a) Whether in the light of the views expressed in the case of Lovely Exports (supra) and Steller Investment (sup…

Andhra Pradesh Gas Power Corporatio Limited, Hyderabad vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Hyderabad

ITA 1452/HYD/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad09 Sept 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuappellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri V.Siva Kumar, ARFor Respondent: Shri Rajendra Kumar, CIT-DR

Section 263

…r as it is prejudicial to the interests of the revenue. It may be relevant to refer to the following decisions in case no proper enquiry is made: i. pragathi Financial Management Pvt. Ltd. Vs CIT (386ITR 162) (Cal), ii. Rajmandir Estates Pvt. Ltd., Vs Pr.CIT (386 ITR 162)(Kol) iii. Daniel Merchants Pvt. Ltd., Vs ITO(Appeal(C) No.23976/2017) (SC) wherein it was held that the CIT can revise the assessment order when the assessing officer does not make proper inquiry while making the assessment and accepting the claim of the assessee for a deduction. 8. In view of the discussion above and the reasons mentioned in th…

Andhra Pradesh Gas Power Corporation Limited, Hyderabad vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Hyderabad

ITA 724/HYD/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad09 Sept 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuappellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri V.Siva Kumar, ARFor Respondent: Shri Rajendra Kumar, CIT-DR

Section 263

M/S Dsiidc Ltd., New Delhi vs. Pr.CIT-03, New Delhi

The appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 2674/DEL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Sept 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kamble

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 801Section 80I

…icer (Appeal No. 2396/2017 order dated 29.11.2017). The Ld. DR also relied upon following decision of the various Hon’ble High Courts and Tribunal: (a) Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. Vs. CIT (2000) 243 ITR 83 (SC) (b) Rajmandir Estates (P) Ltd. vs. PCIT (2016) 386 ITR 162 (Cal.) (c) Rajmandir Estates (P.) Ltd. vs. PCIT (2017) 245 Taxman 127 (SC) (d) Shree Manjunathesware Packing Products & Camphor Works vs. CIT (1998) 231 ITR 53 (SC) 8. We have heard both the parties and perused all the relevant material available on record. It is pertinent to note that the Assessing Officer has raised only a query before compl…

M/S Dsiidc Ltd., New Delhi vs. Pr.CIT-03, New Delhi

The appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 2673/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Sept 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kamble

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 801Section 80I

Reliance Industries Ltd., Mumbai vs. Pr. CIT (PCIT)-3, Mumbai

The appeal stands allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 578/MUM/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Sept 2021AY 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Nimesh Vora, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Vinay Sinha, Ld. CIT-DR

Section 263

…said point did not properly apply his mind thereto, the order passed by him become erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue. It has been held, by Hon'ble High Court of Calcutta in the case of Rajmandir Estates P. Ltd. Vs. PrCIT-Kolkata -III [2016] 386 ITR 162(Cal.) that where assessing officer had, after obtaining details by way of notice u/s 142(1) did not apply his mind thereto, the order passed by him become erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue. 5.3. The case laws cited by the assessee do not assist it because those relate to the situation, where the assessing officer had taken one…

Income Tax Officer, Ward-16(3), Hyderabad vs. Maithili Financials Private Limited, Hyderabad

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is allowed

ITA 1656/HYD/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad26 Jul 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri A. Mohan Alankamonyassessment Year: 2013-14 Income Tax Officer, Vs. M/S. Maithili Financials Ward – 16(3), Private Limited, Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan: Aaccm 4074 H (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri A.V. Raghuram Revenue By: Shri Rohit Mujumdar, Dr Date Of Hearing: 07/07/2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 26/07/2021 Order Per A. Mohan Alankamony, Am.:

For Appellant: Shri A.V. RaghuramFor Respondent: Shri Rohit Mujumdar, DR

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 68

…assessee are distinguished in the case CIT vs. Nipun Builders and Developers Private Limited reported in 350 ITR 407 (Del.), CIT vs. OASIS Hospitalities Private Limited reported in 333 ITR 119 (Del.) and Rajmandir Estates Private Limited vs. PCIT reported in 386 ITR 162 (Kal.) wherein it was held that “where the assessee has invested in private limited companies higher burden is on the assessee to explain the source of the assessee’s investment”. In the case of the assessee, it is also not explained as to why the assessee has paid the share premium to the extent of Rs. 90/- for the face value of share of Rs. 10/…

Rutvi Oilfields Services Pvt Ltd, Gurgaon vs. Pr. CIT, Gurgaon

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3291/DEL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Jun 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Dr. B. R. R. Kumar

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

…or A.Y. 2007-08 order dated 16.04.2018) v. Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. Vs CIT [2000] 109 Taxman 66 (SC)/[2000] 243 ITR 83 (SC)/[2000] 159 CTR 1 (SC) vi. Rajmandir Estates (P.) Ltd. Vs PCIT [70 taxmann.com 124 (Calcutta)/[2016] 240 Taxman 306 (Calcutta)/[2016] 386 ITR 162 (Calcutta)/[2016] 287 CTR 512] vii. Rajmandir Estates (P.) Ltd. Vs PCIT [2017] 77 taxmann.com 285 (SC)/[2017] 245 Taxman 127 (SC) viii. Shree Manjunathesware Packing Products & Camphor Works Vs CIT [1998] 96 Taxman 1 (SC)/[1998] 231 ITR 53 (SC)/[1997] 143 CTR 406 (SC) ix. PTC Impex (India) Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT (ITA No. 2860/Del/2010 dated 03.04.2018…

Nirmal Gupta, New Delhi vs. Pr.CIT- 9, New Delhi

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 108/DEL/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Jun 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kamblei.T.A. No. 108/Del/2018 (A.Y. 2015-16) (Through Video Conferencing) Nirmal Gupta Vs Pr. Cit-9 5/5, East Punjabi Bagh, New Delhi New Delhi Pan: Aagpg0462J (Respondent) (Appellant) Appellant By Ms. Rano Jain, Adv Respondent By Sh. Parmita M. Biswas, Cit, Dr Date Of Hearing 03.06.2021 Date Of Pronouncement 22.06.2021

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

…3976/2017 order dated 29.11.2017 (SC) b) BSES Rajdhani Power Ltd. vs. PCIT 399 ITR 228 (Del) c) Surya Financial Services Ltd. vs. PCIT (ITA No. 2158/Del/2017) ITAT Delhi 5 d) Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. 243 ITR 83 (SC) e) Rajmandir Estates (P.) Ltd. vs. PCIT 386 ITR 162 (Cal) f) Rajmandir Estates (P.) Ltd. vs. PCIT (2017) 77 taxmann.com 285 (SC) g) CIT vs. Amitabh Bachhan Civil Appeal 5009 of 2016 dated 11.05.2016 (SC). 8. We have heard both the parties and perused the material available on record. At the time of hearing the Ld. AR pointed out certain documents such as Return of Income filed by the assessee on…

Rajani Venkata Naga Anavarapu Narayna, New Delhi vs. Pr.CIT-20, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1817/DEL/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Jun 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kambledr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 1817/Del/2020 : Asstt. Year: 2015-16 Rajani Venkata Naga Annavarapu Vs Pcit-20, Narayana, A-14, Mangal Co-Operative New Delhi Group Housing Society Ltd., Vasundhara Enclave, Delhi-110096 (Appellantt (Respondent) Pan No. Agbpn4766D

For Appellant: Sh. Manoj Kumar, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Pramita M. Biswas, CIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 48Section 54Section 68

…ssee, in absence of any supporting material without making any enquiry, exercise of jurisdiction by Commissioner under section 263(1) was justified. 5. Raimandir Estates (P.) Ltd. Vs PCIT I70 taxmann.com 124 (Calcutta)/[2016] 240 Taxman 306 (Calcutta)/[2016] 386 ITR 162 (Calcutta)/[2016] 287 CTR 512] where Hon’ble Calcutta High Court held that where assessee with a small amount of authorised share capital, raised a huge sum on account of premium and chose not to go in for increase of authorised share capital merely to avoid payment of statutory fees and Assessing Officer passed assessment order without carrying…

M/S Eversafe Securities Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward-5(3), Kolkata

ITA 604/KOL/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata30 Apr 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sri Aby T. Varkey)

Section 131Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 292BSection 68

…issue of notice or completion of assessment by such authority is illegal. 8.20. In the case of P.V. Doshi Vs CITthe Gujarat High Court held that the jurisdictional issue can be taken up at any stage of the proceedings. 8.21. In the case of Rajmandir Estates (386 ITR 162) the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court held that if the Commissioner Income tax issuing notice u/ s. 263 has lost the Jurisdiction then the notice and order issued by him is a nullity. 8.22. The Lucknow Bench of the ITAT in ITA No. 89 and 90/LKW/2015 dated 16.4.2015 in the case of Md Rizwan held that notice u/ s 143(2) issued by non-jurisdictional Asse…

M/S Venkatesh Technokraft Pvt. Ltd., Ludhiana vs. ITO, W-1(5), Ludhiana

ITA 1464/CHANDI/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh19 Apr 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Him Which Is Arbitrary & Unjustified. 3. That The Assessment Order Having Been Passed By The Assessing Officer After Due Application Of Mind & Taking Into Consideration The Various Replies, Material On Record & Books Of Account, The Action Resorted To By The Commissioner Of Income Tax Is Unwarranted & Uncalled For.

For Appellant: Shri Tejmohan Singh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sandip Dahiya, CIT

Section 143(1)Section 263

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण,च"डीगढ़ "यायपीठ “बी” , च"डीगढ़ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CHANDIGARH BENCH “B”, CHANDIGARH (VIRTUAL COURT) "ी एन.के.सैनी, उपा"य" एवं "ी आर.एल. नेगी, "या"यक सद"य BEFORE: SHRI. N.K.SAINI, VP & SHRI , R.L. NEGI, JM आयकर अपील सं./ ITA NO. 1464/Chd/2018 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2014-15 M/s Venkatesh Technokraft Pvt. Ltd. The ITO, बनाम C/o Sh. Tejmohan Singh, Advocate W-1(5), Ludhiana, Punjab # 527,Sector 10-D,Chandigarh "थायी लेखा सं./PAN NO: AABCV9215G अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee by : Shri Tejmohan Singh, Advocate राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue by : Shr…

ITO, New Delhi vs. M/S. Elative Building Solutions Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 2498/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Mar 2021AY 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Sudesh Garg, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Jagdish Singh, Sr. DR

…g.)/44 taxmann.com 408 (Delhi); (iv) Olwin Tiles India (P.) Ltd. v. Dy. CIT [2016] 382 ITR 291/237 Taxman 342/66 taxmann.com 8 (Guj.); (v) B.R. Petrochem (P.) Ltd. v. ITO [2017] 81 taxmann.com 424 (Mad.); and (vi) Rajmandir Estates (P.) Ltd. v. Pr. CIT [2016] 386 ITR 162/240 Taxman 306/70 taxmann.com 124 (Cal.), cited on behalf of the respondent are distinguishable, in that the cash credits towards share capital were admittedly only by way of book adjustment and not actual receipts which could not be substantiated as receipts towards share subscription money.” 5. Applying the propositions of law laid down in the…

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

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH : D : NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI R.K. PANDA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND MS SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment 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 aga…

Essar Capital Ltd, Mumbai vs. Pr CIT 6, Mumbai

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3759/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Jan 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Ram Lal Negiassessment Year: 2012-13 M/S. Vajresh Consultants Prcit 6, Ltd. (Earlier Known As Aayakar Bhavan, Essar Capital Ltd.), Mumbai - 400020 Vs. 40-B, Ridge Road, Malabar Hill, Mumbai – 400 006 Pan: Aabce 7257R (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : Shri Nishant Thakkar, A.R. & Shri Hiten Chande, A.R. Revenue By : Shri R. Manjunatha Swamy, D.R. Date Of Hearing : 23.10.2020 Date Of Pronouncement : 08.01.2021 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Nishant Thakkar, A.R. &For Respondent: Shri R. Manjunatha Swamy, D.R

Section 143(3)Section 263

…Pr. CIT (ITAT Mumbai) 5015/Mum/2018. Reliance is also placed on the following case laws:- (a) Arvee International vs. Addl CIT (2006)(101 ITD 495)(Mum) (b) Adani Agro (P) Ltd vs. DCIT (2013)(32 taxmann.com 356)(Guj) (c) Rajmandir Estates (P) Ltd vs. Pr. CIT (386 ITR 162)(Cal) (d) Rajmandir Estates (P) Ltd vs, Pr. CIT (77 taxmann.com 285)(SC) 8.15. The Ld. D.R also submitted that the Explanation 2 to sec. 263 of the Act also deems the assessment order as erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of revenue, if the same is passed without making necessary enquiries. 9. In the rejoinder, the ld AR submitted that…

Play Games 24 X 7 Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Pr. .CIT-(A) 13, Mumbai

In the result, this appeal by the assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3910/MUM/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Jan 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Ram Lal Negi: A.Y : 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Percy PardiwalaFor Respondent: Shri Shishir Dhamija

Section 263

…001] 248 ITR 292 (Ker.); iii) Venkatakrishna Rice Co. v. CIT [1987] 163 ITR 129 (Mad.); iv) Thalibai F. Jain v. Income Tax Officer [1975] 101 ITR 1 (Kar.); v) CIT v. Pushpa Devi [1987] 164 ITR 639 (Pat.); and, vi) Rajmandir Estates Private Limited v. Pr. CIT, 386 ITR 162 (Cal.) He further observed that it has been held in CIT (Mum) vs. Amitabh Bachchan [2016] 69 Taxmann.com 170 (SC) that “Section 263 does not require any specific show cause notice detailing specific grounds on which revision of assessment order is tentatively being proposed affecting initiation of exercise in absence thereof or to require Commis…

Seth Brothers, Meerut vs. CIT, Meerut

In the result, the Appeal filed by the Assessee stands partly

ITA 3395/DEL/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Dec 2020AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri O.P. Kant(Through Video Conference)

For Appellant: Sh. C.S. Anand, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. H.K. Choudhary, CIT(DR)

Section 143(3)Section 263

…the Assessing Officer had failed to conduct inquiries in that regard. The Ld. CIT(DR) also filed submitted written submissions wherein reliance was placed on Malabar Ind. Co. Ltd. v/s CIT 243 ITR 83 (Supreme Court); Rajmandir Estates (P.) Ltd. vs. Or. CIT 386 ITR 162 (Calcutta) and Rajmandir Estates (P) Ltd. vs. PCIT 77 taxmann.com 285 (Supreme Court). 4. We have heard both the parties and perused the orders of the revenue authorities especially the impugned order alongwith written submissions filed by both the parties as well as documentary evidences in the shape of paper book. We find that notice u/s 263…

ITO, Ward - 6(1), Kolkata vs. M/S. Dhankamal Commosaes Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 2089/KOL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata17 Jun 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sri Aby T. Varkey) Assessment Year: 2012-13

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 68

…2007; and (vi) Rajmandir Estates Private Limited v. Principal Commissioner of Income (vi) Rajmandir Estates Private Limited v. Principal Commissioner of Income (vi) Rajmandir Estates Private Limited v. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, reported in (2016) 386 ITR 162 (Calcutta), cited on behalf of the Tax, reported in (2016) 386 ITR 162 (Calcutta), cited on behalf of the Tax, reported in (2016) 386 ITR 162 (Calcutta), cited on behalf of the respondent are distinguishable, in that the cash credits towards share capit respondent are distinguishable, in that the cash credits towards share capit respondent are di…