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

Issues it is cited on

prejudicial to interest of revenueinadequate enquirysection 263(1)lack of enquirymalabar industrialnon application of minderroneous and prejudicialprincipal commissioner of income-taxsection 119share application moneysection 263section 26

Judgments citing Rajmandir Estates Private Limited v. Pr. CIT

Radiant Hues Crm Solutions Pvt Ltd, Gurgaon vs. Pr. CIT, Gurgaon

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 3846/DEL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Oct 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Suchitra Kamble[A.Y 2014-15]

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Shivam, CIT- DR
Section 143(3)Section 263

…ence the provisions of section 263 of the Act were not applicable to the instant case and, therefore, the commissioner was not justified in setting aside the assessment order.” 19. The ld.. DR placed reliance on the decision in the case of Rajmandir Estates 386 ITR 162 wherein the Assessing Officer did not make any enquiry in respect of huge premium collected by the assessee with a small amount of authorised share capital and, therefore, it was held. that the commissioner was justified in treating the assessment order as erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. 20. Another decision relied up…

Building Materials & Technology Promotion Council, New Delhi vs. DCIT(E), Circle- 1(1), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 3846/DEL/2017[2007-08]Status: PendingITAT Delhi31 Oct 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Suchitra Kamble[A.Y 2014-15]

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Shivam, CIT- DR
Section 143(3)Section 263

…ence the provisions of section 263 of the Act were not applicable to the instant case and, therefore, the commissioner was not justified in setting aside the assessment order.” 19. The ld.. DR placed reliance on the decision in the case of Rajmandir Estates 386 ITR 162 wherein the Assessing Officer did not make any enquiry in respect of huge premium collected by the assessee with a small amount of authorised share capital and, therefore, it was held. that the commissioner was justified in treating the assessment order as erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. 20. Another decision relied up…

Mrs. Shumana Sen, Noida vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, all the four appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 3284/DEL/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Oct 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Kuldip Singh

For Appellant: Shri Shumana Sen, AssesseeFor Respondent: Smt. Deepika Mittal, CIT- DR
Section 263

…g Officer has not only made thorough enquiry, but has also done detailed investigative work by calling for information u/s 133(6) of the Act from various parties mentioned elsewhere. 36. Similar is the fate of the decision in the case of Rajmandir Estates 386 ITR 162 wherein the Assessing Officer did not make any enquiry in respect of huge premium collected by the assessee with a small amount of authorised share capital and, therefore, it was held that the commissioner was justified in treating the assessment order as erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. 37. Another decision relied upon…

Mrs. Shumana Sen, Noida vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, all the four appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 3281/DEL/2015[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Oct 2019AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Kuldip Singh

For Appellant: Shri Shumana Sen, AssesseeFor Respondent: Smt. Deepika Mittal, CIT- DR
Section 263

…g Officer has not only made thorough enquiry, but has also done detailed investigative work by calling for information u/s 133(6) of the Act from various parties mentioned elsewhere. 36. Similar is the fate of the decision in the case of Rajmandir Estates 386 ITR 162 wherein the Assessing Officer did not make any enquiry in respect of huge premium collected by the assessee with a small amount of authorised share capital and, therefore, it was held that the commissioner was justified in treating the assessment order as erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. 37. Another decision relied upon…

Virandra Kumar Gupta, New Delhi vs. CIT, International Texation, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2055/DEL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Oct 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri V.P. Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Sulekha Verma, Sr.D.R
Section 143(3)Section 263

…e has cited catena of judgments, the list of which as under: 9 I.T.A. No.2055/DEL/2019 1. Deniel Merchant Pvt. Ltd. vs. ITO (Appeal No.2396/2017 (SC) 2. Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. vs. CIT [2000] 243 ITR 83 (SC) 3. Rajmandir Estates (P) Ltd. vs. PCIT (2016) 386 ITR 162 (Calcutta) 4. Rajmandir Estates (P) Ltd. vs. PCIT (2017) 77 taxmann.com 285 (SC) 5. Shree Manjunathesware Packing Products & Camphor Works vs. CIT (1998) 231 ITR 53 (SC) 6. CIT vs. Amitabh Bachchan 384 ITR 200 dated May 11, 2016 (SC) 7. PTC Impex (India) Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT, ITA No.2860/Del/2010 dated 03.04.2018 (Tribunal) 8. CIT vs. Infosys Techno…

Mrs. Shumana Sen, Noida vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, all the four appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 3283/DEL/2015[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Oct 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Kuldip Singh

For Appellant: Shri Shumana Sen, AssesseeFor Respondent: Smt. Deepika Mittal, CIT- DR
Section 263

…g Officer has not only made thorough enquiry, but has also done detailed investigative work by calling for information u/s 133(6) of the Act from various parties mentioned elsewhere. 36. Similar is the fate of the decision in the case of Rajmandir Estates 386 ITR 162 wherein the Assessing Officer did not make any enquiry in respect of huge premium collected by the assessee with a small amount of authorised share capital and, therefore, it was held that the commissioner was justified in treating the assessment order as erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. 37. Another decision relied upon…

Mrs. Shumana Sen, Noida vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, all the four appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 3282/DEL/2015[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Oct 2019AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Kuldip Singh

For Appellant: Shri Shumana Sen, AssesseeFor Respondent: Smt. Deepika Mittal, CIT- DR
Section 263

…g Officer has not only made thorough enquiry, but has also done detailed investigative work by calling for information u/s 133(6) of the Act from various parties mentioned elsewhere. 36. Similar is the fate of the decision in the case of Rajmandir Estates 386 ITR 162 wherein the Assessing Officer did not make any enquiry in respect of huge premium collected by the assessee with a small amount of authorised share capital and, therefore, it was held that the commissioner was justified in treating the assessment order as erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. 37. Another decision relied upon…

Ashok Kumar Sinha, Ghaziabad vs. Prcit, Ghaziabad

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3615/DEL/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Aug 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri N. K. Billaiya & Ms Suchitra Kamble

Section 133(6)Section 147Section 263

…IT (I.T.A. No.2158/DEL/2017) ITAT Delhi 4. Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. Vs CIT [2000] 109 Taxman 66 (SC)/[2000] 243 ITR 83 (SC)/ [2000] 159 CTR 1 (SC) 6. 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] 7. Rajmandir Estates (P.) Ltd. Vs PCIT [2017] 77 taxmann.com 285 SC)/[2017] 245 Taxman 127 (SC) 8. Swarup Vegetable Products Vs CIT [1991] 54 Taxman 175 (Allahabad)/[1991] 187 ITR 412 (Allahabad)/[1990] 90 CTR 113 (Allahabad) 9. Lakshmi Vilas Bank Vs JCIT (2018-TIOL-2284-HC-MAD-IT) 10. CIT Vs Amitabh Bachhan (69 tax…

T I Steels Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. Pr. CIT- 9, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2176/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Jul 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Sh. H. S. Sidhudr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 2176/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2012-13 T.I. Steels Pvt. Ltd., Vs Income Tax Officer, H.No. 98A, Block-Af, Shalimar Ward-25(1), Bagh, New Delhi-110088 New Delhi-110002 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aabct9896R Assessee By : Sh. Mohit Sachdeva, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. S. S. Rana, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 04.07.2019 Date Of Pronouncement: 08.07.2019 Order Per B. R. R. Kumar:

For Appellant: Sh. Mohit Sachdeva, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. S. S. Rana, CIT DR
Section 10CSection 119Section 143(3)Section 262Section 263Section 80I

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCHES ‘G’, NEW DELHI Before Sh. H. S. Sidhu, Judicial Member Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Accountant Member ITA No. 2176/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2012-13 T.I. Steels Pvt. Ltd., Vs Income Tax Officer, H.No. 98A, Block-AF, Shalimar Ward-25(1), Bagh, New Delhi-110088 New Delhi-110002 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. AABCT9896R Assessee by : Sh. Mohit Sachdeva, Adv. Revenue by : Sh. S. S. Rana, CIT DR Date of Hearing: 04.07.2019 Date of Pronouncement: 08.07.2019 ORDER Per B. R. R. Kumar, Accountant Member: The assessee has raised following effective grounds of appeal: ”1. That…

M/S. Satyashiv Shares & Securities Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. Pr. CIT= 8, New Delhi

ITA 2791/DEL/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Jun 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri K.N.Charym/S. Satyashiv Shares & Vs. Pr. Commissioner Of Income Securities Pvt. Ltd, Tax, M-11, South Extension, Part-2, New Delhi New Delhi Pan: Aancs5482Q (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri R. C Rai, CAFor Respondent: Shri S. S. Rana, CIT DR
Section 131Section 133Section 139Section 143Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 68

…where the special leave petition against the decision of the honourable Calcutta High Court was dismissed. Further the factual matrix is also identical to the decision of the honourable Calcutta High Court in case of Raj mandir Estates private limited vs CIT 386 ITR 162 where the action of the learned CIT-A invoking jurisdiction u/s 263 of the income tax act was upheld. Further in another decision of the honourable Calcutta High Court in property financial management Ltd 2017 (3) TMI – 1242 dated 7/3/2017 also the order passed by the learned principal Commissioner of income tax u/s 263 was also held to be valid.…

Summit (India) Water Treatment & Services Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The Pr. CIT-4, Ahmedabad

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

ITA 1338/AHD/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad27 May 2019AY 2013-14
For Appellant: Shri Dhinal Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Shri O.P. Sharma, CIT-D.R
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 263Section 271BSection 40

…r appeals already decided and in all the four appeals it was found that the questions raised were not substantial questions of law. These decisions are Rajmaridir Estates Private Limited Vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Kolkaia-III reported in (2016) 386 ITR 162 (Kol), M/s. Pragati Finance Management Private Limited Vs. CIT-II in ITAT No. 178 of 2016 which was decided on 7th March, 201 7, Success Tours and Travels Private Limited & Anr. Vs. Income Tax Oijicer, Ward- 9(4) Kolkata & Ors. in ITAT No. 17 8 of 2015 which was decided on 23rd I.T.A No. 1338/Ahd/2018 A.Y. 2013-14 Page No 6 Summit (India) Water…

M/S. Access Global Limited, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward - 4(3), Kolkata

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

ITA 13/KOL/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata24 Apr 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri A.T. Varkey, J.M. & Dr.A.L.Saini, A.M.)

For Appellant: Shri S. M Surana, Advocate, ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri A.K. Singh, CIT, ld.Sr.DR
Section 144(1)Section 68

…rted in (2016) 382 ITR 291 (Gujarat) ; ( v) B . R . Petrochem Pvt. Ltd . v . The Income Tax Officer, (Order dated 24.4.2017 in T. C (A ) No. 1498 of 2007; and ( vi) Rajmandir Estates Private Limited v . Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, reported in (2016) 386 ITR 162(Calcutta), 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. 28. The appeal is, thus, allowed and the judgment and order of the learned Tribunal…

Sh. Sanjeev Singh, Karnal vs. Pr. CIT, Karnal

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

ITA 1781/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Apr 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kambleassessment Year: 2011-12 Sanjeev Singh, Vs Pr. Cit, 861, Sector-9 U.E, Karnal. Karnal. Pan: Chkps0618H (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Shri Somil Aggarwal & Sobhit Revenue By : Shri Kanwaljit Singh, Cit, Dr Date Of Hearing : 13.02.2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 24.04.2019 Order Per R.K. Panda, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 3Rd February, 2016 Passed U/S 263(1) Of The It Act, 1961 By The Pcit, Karnal, Relating To Assessment Year 2011-12. 2. Facts Of The Case, In Brief, Are That The Assessee Is An Individual & Filed His Return Of Income On 6Th July, 2011 Declaring Total Income Of Rs.1,58,105/- & Agricultural Income Of Rs.5 Lakhs. The Assessing Officer Completed The Assessment U/S 143(3) On 10Th January, 2014 Determining The Total Income Of The Assessee At Rs.6,30,545/- & Agricultural Income Of Rs.5 Lakhs. Subsequently, The Ld.Cit Issued

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh GuptaFor Respondent: Shri Kanwaljit Singh, CIT, DR
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 263(1)

…cts and circumstances of the case is fully justified:- (i) Deniel Merchants Pvt. Ltd. vs. ITO (Appeal No.2396/2017, order dated 29.11.2017) (SC); (ii) Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. vs. CIT (2000) 243 ITR 83(SC); (iii) Rajmandir Estates (P) Ltd. vs. PCIT (2016) 386 ITR 162 (Calcutta); 7 Rajmandir Estates (P) Ltd. vs. PCIT (2017) 77 taxmann.com 285 (SC); (v) Shree Manjunathesware Packing Products & Camphor Works vs. CIT (1998) 231 ITR 53 (SC); (vi) CIT vs. Amitabh Bachchan, 384 ITR 200 (SC); and (vii) PTC Impex (India) Pvt. Ltd vs. CIT (ITA No.2860/Del/2010, order dated 03.04.2018) (ITAT Delhi). 10. Referring…

Mohd. Momineen Qureshi, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle- 46(1), New Delhi

In the result appeal of assessee dismissed

ITA 1987/DEL/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Apr 2019AY 2015-16

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

For Appellant: Shri Anil Kakkar, C.AFor Respondent: Ms. Parmita M. Biswas, CIT-DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCHES “E” : DELHI BEFORE SHRI BHAVNESH SAINI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI O.P. KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA.No.1987/Del./2018 AND Stay Application No.261/Del./2018 Assessment Year 2015-2016 Mohd. Momineen Qureshi, The ACIT, 401, 4th Floor, Vardhman vs City-2, Plaza Asaf Ali Road, Circle-46(1), New Delhi – 110 002. Delhi. PAN AAGPQ2968R (Appellant (Respondent) For Assessee : Shri Anil Kakkar, C.A. For Revenue : Ms. Parmita M. Biswas, CIT-DR Date of Hearing : 26.03.2019 Date of Pronouncement : 02.04.2019 ORDER PER BHAVNESH SAINI, J.M. ITA.No.1987/Del./2018 by Assessee has…

Rajesh Kumar, Hisar vs. CIT, Hisar

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 3337/DEL/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Mar 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2008-09 Shri Rajesh Kumar, Vs. Cit, 1931, Gate No. 2, Behind Hisar M.G. Road, Hisar Pan :Aohpk1201L (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri Manoj Kumar, Adv. Respondent By Smt. Sulekha Verma, Cit(Dr)

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

…peal No. 2396/2017), dated 29.11.2017; 2. Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. Vs. CIT [2000] 109 Taxman 66 (SC/[2000] 243 ITR 83 (SC)/[2000] 159 CTR 1 (SC); 3. 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; and 4. Rajmandir Estates (P.) Ltd. vs. PCIT [2017] 77 taxmann.com 285 (SC)/[2017] 245 Taxman 127 (SC). 14 4.4 The Ld. DR also relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT versus Amitabh Bachchan, 384 ITR 200 wherein the commissioner has been authorised to exercise his jurisdiction on consi…

M/S Abhijeet Enterprise Ltd., Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward 2(2), Kolkata

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 308/KOL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata27 Mar 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am]

Section 68

…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. 27. The appeal is, thus, allowed and the judgment and…

Ramesh Kumar Goyal HUF, Hisar vs. ITO, Ward-3, Hisar

Appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1983/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Jan 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Smt. Beena A. Pillaidr. B.R.R. Kumarassessment Year: 2014-15 Ramesh Kumar Ito, H.No.467, Urban Estate-Ii, Ward- 3, Hisar, Hisar, Vs. Hisar Haryana, Pin: 125005

For Appellant: Shri K. Sampat, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Sulekha Verma, CIT(DR)
Section 10(38)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 263(1)

…sessee, in absence of any supporting material without making any enquiry, exercise of jurisdiction by Commissioner under section 263(1) was justified 3. Rajmandir Estates (P.) Ltd. Vs PCIT T70 taxmann.com 124 (Calcutta)/f20161 240 Taxman 306 (Calcutta)/f2016l 386 ITR 162 (Calcutta)/f20161 287 CTR 5121 (Copy enclosed) 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 w…

Ramesh Kumar, Hisar vs. ITO, Ward-3, Hisar

Appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1982/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Jan 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Smt. Beena A. Pillaidr. B.R.R. Kumarassessment Year: 2014-15 Ramesh Kumar Ito, H.No.467, Urban Estate-Ii, Ward- 3, Hisar, Hisar, Vs. Hisar Haryana, Pin: 125005

For Appellant: Shri K. Sampat, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Sulekha Verma, CIT(DR)
Section 10(38)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 263(1)

…sessee, in absence of any supporting material without making any enquiry, exercise of jurisdiction by Commissioner under section 263(1) was justified 3. Rajmandir Estates (P.) Ltd. Vs PCIT T70 taxmann.com 124 (Calcutta)/f20161 240 Taxman 306 (Calcutta)/f2016l 386 ITR 162 (Calcutta)/f20161 287 CTR 5121 (Copy enclosed) 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 w…

Shree Sai City Promoters and Developers Pvt. Ltd., Delhi vs. Pr.CIT- 8, New Delhi

In the result ITA No. 2841/Del/2017 is dismissed

ITA 6905/DEL/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Jan 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri Prashant Maharishishri Sai City Promoters & Developers Vs. Pr. Cit,8 Pvt Ltd, New Delhi H. No. 25 Block & Pockets C-3, Sector- 11, Rohini, Delhi Pan: Aajcs1878A (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri S. Krishnan, CAFor Respondent: Shri S.S. Rana, CIT DR
Section 147Section 263

…SLP against the decision of the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court wherein, the assessee challenged the order of the Calcutta High Court upholding the order of the ld CIT u/s 263 of the Act. Further, the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in Raj Mandir Estates Pvt. Ltd Vs. 386 ITR 162 has also upheld the action of the ld CIT in invoking jurisdiction u/s 263 of the Act. Further, in the another decision of the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in Pragati Financial Management Ltd 2017 (3) TMI-1242 dated 07.03.2017 has held that 263 is valid when the ld AO has not conducted proper enquiries. In that decision in para no. 7 the Hon'ble Hi…

Sse Commodities Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. Pr. CIT- 8, New Delhi

In the result ITA No. 2841/Del/2017 is dismissed

ITA 2841/DEL/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Jan 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri Prashant Maharishishri Sai City Promoters & Developers Vs. Pr. Cit,8 Pvt Ltd, New Delhi H. No. 25 Block & Pockets C-3, Sector- 11, Rohini, Delhi Pan: Aajcs1878A (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri S. Krishnan, CAFor Respondent: Shri S.S. Rana, CIT DR
Section 147Section 263

…SLP against the decision of the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court wherein, the assessee challenged the order of the Calcutta High Court upholding the order of the ld CIT u/s 263 of the Act. Further, the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in Raj Mandir Estates Pvt. Ltd Vs. 386 ITR 162 has also upheld the action of the ld CIT in invoking jurisdiction u/s 263 of the Act. Further, in the another decision of the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in Pragati Financial Management Ltd 2017 (3) TMI-1242 dated 07.03.2017 has held that 263 is valid when the ld AO has not conducted proper enquiries. In that decision in para no. 7 the Hon'ble Hi…