Reddy v. PCIT

167 Taxmann.com 297Reported decision2024#16931 most cited
5

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 348,356 Indian tax judgments — from 2025 to 2026.

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 142(1)Section 144BSection 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 10(38)

Issues it is cited on

prejudicial to interest of revenuerevision under section 263lack of enquiryerroneous and prejudicialcomplete scrutinysection 263section 26scrutiny assessmentsection 144bsection 143(2)section 142(1)section 143

Judgments citing Reddy v. PCIT

Studds Accessories Limited, Faridabad vs. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Faridabad

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 3570/DEL/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Feb 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan

For Appellant: Sh. Vishal Kalkra, Adv &For Respondent: Sh. Avikal Manu, CIT DR
Section 14Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 263Section 80J

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCHES ‘E’: NEW DELHI. BEFORE SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER and SHRI RAJ KUMAR CHAUHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No. 3570/ DEL/2025 (Assessment Year : 2020-21) Studds Accessories Limited Vs. PCIT Plot No. 918, Sector 68, IMT Faridabad Faridabad 121004 (PAN: AACCS4217Q) ASSESSEE BY : Sh. Vishal Kalkra, Adv & Ms. Reema Grewal, CA & Ms. Snigdha Gautam, Adv REVENUE BY : Sh. Avikal Manu, CIT DR Date of Hearing : 09.12.2025 Date of Order : 12.02.2026 O R D E R PER S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER : 1. This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of Pr…

Janta Land Promoters Pvt Ltd, Mohali vs. The Prinicipal Commissioner of Income Tax, Chandigarh-1, Chandigarh

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 618/CHANDI/2025[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh29 Oct 2025AY 2020-2021
For Appellant: Shri Pankaj Bhalla, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Manav Bansal, CIT, DR
Section 143(3)Section 194Section 263Section 68

…ained in law. We order so. Consequently, the assessment as framed by Ld. AO stand restored back. 17. The appeal stand allowed in terms of our above order. f) Reliance was placed on judgement of ITAT Bangalore in case ofMahesh Reddy Vs. PCIT reported in (2024) 167 Taxmann.com 297 inwhich following extract was relied upon:- “INCOME TAX: Pr. Commissioner, in his revisionary jurisdiction, cannot say order with some enquiry done by Assessing Officer to be erroneous; he can hold non inquiry cases to be erroneous and for this he himself has to bring on record error and prejudice through independent verification and enqu…

Sanjay Chawla, Chaibasa vs. Pr. CIT, Ranchi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 135/RAN/2025[20-21]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi07 Oct 2025

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahaysanjay Chawla, Pr.C.I.T., Sentola, Chaibasa-833201 (Jharkhand) Ranchi. Vs. Pan No. Acmpc 6808 J Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 2Section 263Section 63

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, RANCHI BENCH, RANCHI BEFORE SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI RATNESH NANDAN SAHAY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Sanjay Chawla, Pr.C.I.T., Sentola, Chaibasa-833201 (Jharkhand) Ranchi. Vs. PAN No. ACMPC 6808 J Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue Assessee represented by Shri Devesh Poddar, A.R. Department represented by Shri Rajib Jain, CIT-DR Date of hearing 07/10/2025 Date of pronouncement 07/10/2025 O R D E R PER: BENCH 1. This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the ld. Pr.CIT, Ranchi in dated 24/02/2025 passed under Section 263 of the Income Tax Ac…

Sandhya Goel H.No.101217, Huda, Jagadhri, Haryana vs. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax Panchkula, Haryana

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 215/CHANDI/2024[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh14 May 2025AY 2015-2016

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: ShriSudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum Bansal, CIT DR
Section 10(38)Section 132Section 143(3)Section 147Section 263

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण,च"डीगढ़ "यायपीठ,च"डीगढ़ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DIVISION BENCH, ‘B’ CHANDIGARH BEFORE SHRI RAJPAL YADAV, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकरअपीलसं./ ITA No. 215/CHD/2024 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16 Sandhya Goel, Vs The PCIT, House No. 1012/17, Panchkula, HUDA, Jagadhri, Haryana. Haryana. "थायीलेखासं./PAN NO: AGXPG6152E अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Assessee by : ShriSudhir Sehgal, Advocate Revenue by :Smt. Kusum Bansal, CIT DR Date of Hearing :26.03.2025 Date of Pronouncement :14.05.2025 HYBRID HEARING ORDER PER RAJ PAL YADAV, VP…

Smt. Teena Garg, Chandigarh vs. PCIT, Panchkula

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 466/CHANDI/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh20 Feb 2025AY 2015-16
For Respondent: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, Advocate
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 253Section 263

…ome Tax Department was supplied to assessee and therefore the impugned order holding that impugned order of assessment is without any inquiry is bad in law. Reliance was placed on judgement of ITAT Bangalore in case of Mahesh Reddy Vs. PCIT reported in (2024) 167 Taxmann.com 297 in which following extract was relied upon:- “INCOME TAX: Pr. Commissioner, in his revisionary jurisdiction, cannot say order with some enquiry done by Assessing Officer to be erroneous; he can hold non inquiry cases to be erroneous and for this he himself has to bring on record error and prejudice through independent verification and en…

Reddy v. PCIT (167 Taxmann.com 297) — Cited in 5 Judgments | BharatTax