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

M/S. Snb Enterprises Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. Pr. CIT- 8, New Delhi

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

ITA 2544/DEL/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Jan 2019AY 2008-09

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…

Surya Irrigation Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. Pr. CIT- 8, New Delhi

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

ITA 2182/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…

Perfetti Van Melle India Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon vs. Pr CIT, Gurgaon

The appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 3046/DEL/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Jan 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri G. D. Agrawal & Ms Suchitra Kambleperfetti Van Melle India Pvt. Ltd. Vs Pr. Cit(A) Global Business Park, Gurgaon Tower-A, 1St Floor, Mehrauli Gurgaon Road Gurgaon Aaacp2626A (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 144Section 144CSection 263Section 80Section 80I

…fficer (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: 7 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) (e) CIT vs. Amitabh Bachchan 384 ITR 200 (SC) (f) PTC Impex (India) Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT ITA No. 2860/DEL/2010 order dated 03.04.2018. 11. We have heard both the parties and perused…

Jitinder Singh Chadha, New Delhi vs. Prcit-18, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2732/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Dec 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Hon’Ble & Smt. Beena A. Pillaiita No. 2732/Del/2018 : Asstt. Year : 2013-14 Mr. Jitindar Singh Chadha, Vs Pr. Cit-18, C-266, Defence Colony, New Delhi-110002 New Delhi-110024 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aabpc6181D Assessee By : Sh. R. S. Ahuja, Ca Revenue By : Sh. Kumar Hrishikesh, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 04.12.2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 31.12.2018 Order Per N. K. Saini: This Is An Appeal By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 31.03.2018 Of Ld. Pr. Cit-18, New Delhi.

For Appellant: Sh. R. S. Ahuja, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Kumar Hrishikesh, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 55A

…Merchants Pvt. Ltd. Vs ITO in ITA No. 2396/2017, order dated 29.11.2017 (SC) " Surva Jyoti Software Pvt. Ltd. Vs PCIT in ITA No. 2158/Del/2017 (ITAT Del.) " Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. Vs CIT (2000) 243 ITR 83 (SC) " Rajmandir Estates (P.) Ltd. Vs PCIT (2016) 386 ITR 162 (Cal.) " Shree manjunathesware Packing Products & Camphor Works Vs CIT (19981) 231 ITR 53 (SC) " CIT Vs Amitabh Bachhan 384 ITR 200 " CIT Vs Ralson Industries Ltd. 288 ITR 322 12. We have considered the submissions of both the parties and perused the material available on the record. In the present case, it is an admitted fact that the ld. Pr. CI…

ITO, Ward-10(1), Kolkata vs. M/S Sunglow Dealcom Private Limited, Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 2178/KOL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata16 Nov 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi) Assessment Year: 2012-13 Income Tax Officer, Ward-10(1), Kolkata.……......……......………………..……….…….…............Appellant Vs. M/S. Sunglow Dealcom Private Limited……..........…………..……………….…...……..….…......Respondent 3Rd Floor 89, N.S. Road Kolkata – 700 001 [Pan : Aadcs 7562 F]

Section 133(6)Section 250Section 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 4 Assessment Year: 2012-13 M/s. Sunglow Dealcom Private Limited were admittedly only by way of book adjustment and not actual receipts which could not be substantiated as receipts towards share subscri…

Shree Swami Samartha Developers, Mumbai vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax - Ward - 21, Mumbai

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

ITA 2969/MUM/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Shri Ravish Sood(Jm)

Section 143(3)Section 22Section 263

…In support of his contentions, the Ld D.R placed his reliance 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) 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. 6 Shree Swami Samartha Developers 11. The Ld D.R, in…

Supreme Build Cap P.Ltd, New Delhi vs. Prcit, Central-1, New Delhi

ITA 4739/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Oct 2018AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri O.P.Kant & Shri Kuldip Singh

For Appellant: Sh. Rohit Tiwan, AdvFor Respondent: Shri S.S.Rana, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 263

…’ble High Courts cited as Deniel Merchants Pvt. Ltd. vs. ITO (Appeal No. 2396/2017) dated 29.11.2017), Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. vs. CIT [2000] 109 Taxman 66 (SC) / [2000] 243 ITR 83 (SC)/[2000] 159 CTR 1(SC), Rajmandir Estates (P.) Ltd. vs. PCIT [2016] 386 ITR 162 8. So far as the question of providing the adequate opportunity of being heard by Ld. CIT to the assessee is concerned undisputedly first notice was issued to the assessee to appear on 14.03.2018, on which date none-appeared. Then Ld. CIT received an adjournment application for 21.03.2018. Again on 21.03.2018 assessee failed to file any reply…

Gunpreet Singh, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-1(5), Gurgaon

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2731/DEL/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Sept 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N. K. Saini & Ms Suchitra Kamblegunpreet Singh Vs Ito C-353, Defence Colony, Ward-1(5) New Delhi Gurgaon Bdeps3018Q Haryana (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148

…the Assessing Officer has taken the figures of the sales, but overlooked the balance sheet showing that the opening stock is Nil. The Ld. AR relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in case of Rajmandir Estates Pvt. Ltd. vs. Pr. CIT (2016) 386 ITR 162 (Cal) and Hon’ble Delhi High Court’s decision in case of NDTV vs. DCIT & Anr. (2017) 298 CTR 230. 6. The Ld. DR relied upon the Assessment order and the order of the CIT(A). 7. We have heard both the parties and perused all the relevant material available on record. The reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer are as under: “Annexure Shri Gunpr…

The ACIT, Vijayawada vs. M/S. Mulpuri Foods and Feds Pvt. Ltd., Nuzividu

ITA 292/VIZ/2017[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam26 Sept 2018AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao& Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.292 /Viz/2017 (धििाारण िर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2012-2013) The Acit Vs. M/S Mulpuri Foods & Circle-3(1) Feeds Pvt. Ltd. Vijayawada No.3-93, Ramannagudem Vattigudipadu Post Nuzvid [Pan : Aagcm2045J] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Deba Kumar Sonowal, DRFor Respondent: Shri G.V.N.Hari, AR
Section 68

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, धिशाखापटणम पीठ, धिशाखापटणम IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, VISAKHAPATNAM BENCH, VISAKHAPATNAM श्री िी. दुगाा राि,न्याधयक सदस्य एिं श्री धड.एस. सुन्दर ससह, लेखा सदस्य के समक्ष BEFORE SHRI V. DURGA RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER& SHRI D.S. SUNDER SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.292 /Viz/2017 (धििाारण िर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2012-2013) The ACIT Vs. M/s Mulpuri Foods and Circle-3(1) Feeds Pvt. Ltd. Vijayawada No.3-93, Ramannagudem Vattigudipadu Post Nuzvid [PAN : AAGCM2045J] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलाथी की ओर से/ Appellant by : Shri Deba Kumar Sonowal, DR प्र…

Nkg Infrastructure Ltd., New Delhi vs. Pr.CIT, C- 3, New Delhi

In the result all the three appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 3827/DEL/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Sept 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri G.D. Agrawal, Hon’Ble & Shri K.Narasimha Chary

Section 132(1)Section 143(3)Section 153Section 263Section 263(1)

…error committed by the learned AO in exercise of jurisdiction under section 263 of the Act. 32. Ld. DR placed reliance on a decision reported in BSES Rajdhani Power Ltd vs. PCIT (2017) 399 ITR 228 (Delhi) and Rajmandir Estates Private Limited vs. PCIT (2016) 386 ITR 162 (Calcutta) for the principle that the non- consideration of larger claim of depreciation and consideration of only part of it by the Learned Assessing Officer, who did not go into the question with respect to the whole amount, was an error that could be corrected under section 263 and 19 the Learned Principal Commissioner of Income Tax has power…

Nkg Infrastructure Ltd., New Delhi vs. Pr.CIT, C- 3, New Delhi

In the result all the three appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 3826/DEL/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Sept 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri G.D. Agrawal, Hon’Ble & Shri K.Narasimha Chary

Section 132(1)Section 143(3)Section 153Section 263Section 263(1)

…error committed by the learned AO in exercise of jurisdiction under section 263 of the Act. 32. Ld. DR placed reliance on a decision reported in BSES Rajdhani Power Ltd vs. PCIT (2017) 399 ITR 228 (Delhi) and Rajmandir Estates Private Limited vs. PCIT (2016) 386 ITR 162 (Calcutta) for the principle that the non- consideration of larger claim of depreciation and consideration of only part of it by the Learned Assessing Officer, who did not go into the question with respect to the whole amount, was an error that could be corrected under section 263 and 19 the Learned Principal Commissioner of Income Tax has power…

Nkg Infrastructure Ltd., New Delhi vs. Pr.CIT, C- 3, New Delhi

In the result all the three appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 3825/DEL/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Sept 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri G.D. Agrawal, Hon’Ble & Shri K.Narasimha Chary

Section 132(1)Section 143(3)Section 153Section 263Section 263(1)

…error committed by the learned AO in exercise of jurisdiction under section 263 of the Act. 32. Ld. DR placed reliance on a decision reported in BSES Rajdhani Power Ltd vs. PCIT (2017) 399 ITR 228 (Delhi) and Rajmandir Estates Private Limited vs. PCIT (2016) 386 ITR 162 (Calcutta) for the principle that the non- consideration of larger claim of depreciation and consideration of only part of it by the Learned Assessing Officer, who did not go into the question with respect to the whole amount, was an error that could be corrected under section 263 and 19 the Learned Principal Commissioner of Income Tax has power…

M/S Devraj Sales Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. CIT, Kolkata-1I, Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 975/KOL/2014[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata04 Jul 2018AY 2009-2010

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy& Sri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi] I.T.A. No. 975/Kol/2014 Assessment Year: 2009-10

Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 68

…ecision of the Tribunal in the case of Subhlakshmi Vanijya Pvt. Ltd vs CIT (supra) was the subject matter of the appeal by the assessee before the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court. The Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in the case of Raj Mandir Estates (P)Ltd. Vs Pr.CIT 386 ITR 162 (Cal) was pleased to uphold the order of the tribunal. At the time of hearing of the appeal it was also brought to our notice that as against the decision of the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court aforesaid some of the assessees preferred a petition for Special Leave to appeal before the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the Hon'ble Supreme Court by its order d…

Mr. Rajeev Agarwal, New Delhi vs. Pr. CIT, Rohtak

The appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1716/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Jun 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Suchitra Kamblevs Rajeev Agarwal, Pr. Cit W-7, 2Nd Floor, Aayakar Bhawan, Greater Kailash, Part-1, Opp. Mansarover Park, New Delhi. Rohtak. Pan No. Ahbpa5683K Appellant Respondent Appellant/ Assessee By Sh. Sameer Kapoor, Ca Respondent/ Revenue By Smt. Paramita Tripathi, Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing 12.06.2018 Date Of Pronouncement .06.2018 Order Per Suchitra Kamble, Jm

Section 143(3)Section 263

…ppeal 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]; 4) Rajmandir Estates (P) Ltd. vs. PCIT (2017) 77 taxmann.com 285 (SC)/[2017] 245 Taxman 127 (SC); 6 5) Shree Manjunathesware Packing Products & Camphor Works vs. CIT [1998] 96 Taxman 1 (SC)/[1998] 231 ITR 53 (SC)/[1997] 143 CTR 406 (SC) 7. We have heard both the parties and perused all the records. In the present…

Satya Narain Prakash Punj, New Delhi vs. CIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3259/DEL/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Jun 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri N.K. Billaiyaassessment Year: 2006-07

For Appellant: Sh. Ved Jain, Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. S.S. Rana, CIT(DR)
Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 263Section 263(2)

…t Ld. CIT has all the powers u/s. 263 of the Act to revise the order passed by the AO. The Ld. DR placed reliance on the following judgments in support of his contention: • Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. Vs CIT (243 ITR 83) • Rajmandir Estates (P.) Ltd. Vs PCIT 386 ITR 162 (Cal.) • Rajmandir Estates (P.) Ltd. Vs PCIT [2017] 77 taxmann.com 285(SC) • Deniel Merchants Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ITO (Appeal No. 2396/2017) dated 29.11.2017 4. We have heard both the parties and perused the records, especially the orders passed by the authorities below as well as the case laws relied upon by both the parties. We find that the issu…

M/S. Everbright Vyapaar (P) Ltd., Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward - 1(4), Kolkata

In the result the appeal by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1996/KOL/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata23 May 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: "ी ऐ. ट". वक", "यायीक सद"य एवं/And "ी एम .बालागणेश, लेखा सद"य) [Before Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am]

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 282Section 68

…cision of the Tribunal in the case of Subhlakshmi Vanijya Pvt. Ltd vs CIT (supra) was the subject matter of the appeal by the assessee before the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court. The Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in the case of Raj Mandir Estates (P) Ltd. Vs Pr.CIT 386 ITR 162 (Cal) was pleased to uphold the order of the tribunal. At the time of hearing of the appeal it was also brought to our notice that as against the decision of the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court aforesaid some of the assessees preferred a petition for Special Leave to appeal before the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the Hon'ble Supreme Court by its order d…

Pitti Electrical Equipment Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. ITO, Ward-16(4), Hyderabad

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is partly allowed and the assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1690/HYD/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad11 Apr 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri B. Ramakotaiahm/S. Pitti Electrical Vs Income Tax Officer Equipment Private Ltd Ward 16 ( 4 ) Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan: Aaccp8334P (Appellant) (Respondent) Dy. Commissioner Of Vs M/S. Pitti Electrical Equipment Income Tax, Circle 16(2) Private Ltd Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan: Aaccp8334P (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Laxmi Nivas SharmaFor Respondent: Smt. N. Swapna, DR
Section 133Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 40A(2)(b)Section 68

…lease (P) Ltd reported in (2012) 342 ITR 169. 3. Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Navodaya Castles (P) Ltd reported in (2014) 367 ITR 306. 4. Hon'ble High Court of Calcutta in the case of Rajmandir Estates (P) Ltd vs. Pr. CIT reported in (2016) 386 ITR 162 (Cal.) 11. In view of the law laid down in the above decisions, we deem it fit and proper to remit this issue also to the file of the AO with a direction to reconsider the issue in the light of the evidence filed by the assessee in support of the investment made by the four companies in the assessee’s company. Ground of appeal No.2 is thus treat…

Puja Synthetics Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur vs. PCIT, Jaipur

ITA 440/JPR/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur09 Mar 2018AY 2009-10
For Appellant: Shri Prakul Khurana (Adv.)For Respondent: Smt. Roli Agarwal (CIT)
Section 115JSection 132Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153BSection 263

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES, JAIPUR Jh fot; ikWy jko] U;kf;d lnL; ,oa Jh foØe flag ;kno] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, JM & SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA. No. 440/JP/2017 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Years : 2009-10 Puja Synthetics Pvt. Ltd. cuke Principle Commissioner of C/o Chir Amrit Legal LLP, 6th Vs. Income Tax (Central), Floor, Unique Destination, Opp. Rajasthan Times of India, Tonk Road, Jaipur LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AAACP8449D vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@…

Shri Sanjay Kumar Tyagi, Meerut vs. ACIT, Meerut

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

ITA 4979/DEL/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Feb 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri N. K. Saini & Ms Suchitra Kamblesanjay Kumar Vs Cit Prop. Tyagi Associates Meerut H-45, Gandhi Nagar, Garh Road, (Respondent) Meerut Aczpk2030M (Applicant) Sanjay Kumar Tyagi Vs Acit H. No. 45, Gandhi Nagar, Circle-2, Gali No. 3, Garh Road Bhansali Ground Meerut Meerut Acapk2030M (Respondent) (Applicant) Acit Sanjay Kumar Tyagi Vs Circle-2, H. No. 45, Gandhi Nagar, Bhansali Ground Gali No. 3, Garh Road Meerut Meerut (Applicant) Acapk2030M (Respondent)

For Appellant: “1. That the impugned
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 263

…against the order of the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in G.A No. 599/2016 order dated 10/4/2017. The reliance was also placed on the following case laws:- " Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. Vs CIT (2000) 243 ITR 83 (SC) " Rajmandir Estates (P.) Ltd. Vs PCIT (2016) 386 ITR 162 (Cal.) 16. We have considered the submissions of both the parties and carefully gone through the material available on the record. In the present case, it is an admitted fact that the A.O passed the assessment order u/s 143(3) of the Act and the Ld. CIT exercised his revisionary powers u/s 263 of the Act and held that the order passed by the A.O…

Sh. Sanjay Kumar, Meerut vs. CIT, Meerut

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

ITA 2725/DEL/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Feb 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri N. K. Saini & Ms Suchitra Kamblesanjay Kumar Vs Cit Prop. Tyagi Associates Meerut H-45, Gandhi Nagar, Garh Road, (Respondent) Meerut Aczpk2030M (Applicant) Sanjay Kumar Tyagi Vs Acit H. No. 45, Gandhi Nagar, Circle-2, Gali No. 3, Garh Road Bhansali Ground Meerut Meerut Acapk2030M (Respondent) (Applicant) Acit Sanjay Kumar Tyagi Vs Circle-2, H. No. 45, Gandhi Nagar, Bhansali Ground Gali No. 3, Garh Road Meerut Meerut (Applicant) Acapk2030M (Respondent)

For Appellant: “1. That the impugned
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 263

…against the order of the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in G.A No. 599/2016 order dated 10/4/2017. The reliance was also placed on the following case laws:- " Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. Vs CIT (2000) 243 ITR 83 (SC) " Rajmandir Estates (P.) Ltd. Vs PCIT (2016) 386 ITR 162 (Cal.) 16. We have considered the submissions of both the parties and carefully gone through the material available on the record. In the present case, it is an admitted fact that the A.O passed the assessment order u/s 143(3) of the Act and the Ld. CIT exercised his revisionary powers u/s 263 of the Act and held that the order passed by the A.O…