Smt. Leela Choudhary v. PR. CIT

289 ITR 226High Court2007#4731 most cited

What is Smt. Leela Choudhary v. PR. CIT authority for?

A revised assessment order cannot direct the Assessing Officer to undertake an exercise that should have been completed during the original assessment, as this is not legally permissible.

25

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2018 to 2026.

Also referred to as

Smt. Leela Choudhary · PR. CIT · 289 ITR 226 · revision under section 263 · inadequate enquiry · lack of enquiry · assessment order erroneous · prejudicial to interest of revenue · section 143(3) · section 142(1)

Also reported as

94 TTJ 1036

Sections most often in play

Section 263Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 147Section 11(1)(d)Section 133(6)Section 143(2)

Issues it is cited on

public servantinadequate enquirytrade creditorsprejudicial to interest of revenuelack of enquirysection 263(1)malabar industrialassessment order erroneousrevision under section 263section 119complete scrutinyerroneous and prejudicial

Judgments citing Smt. Leela Choudhary v. PR. CIT

Shree Sant Bhojaji Maharaj Deosthan Ajansara, Wardha vs. Income Tax Officer (Exemption) - 4, Nagpur

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is in ITA No

ITA 212/NAG/2025[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur01 Apr 2026AY 2015-2016

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh& Shri Khettra Mohan Roy

Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 250Section 263

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “DB” BENCH, NAGPUR BEFORE SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER& SHRI KHETTRA MOHAN ROY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No. 211/NAG/2025(AY 2015-16) Shree Sant Bhojaji Maharaj CIT(E), Pune at Nagpur Deosthan Ajansara Vs Saraf Chambers, Sadar, Ajansara, Wardha – 442001. Nagpur – 440001. [PAN: AAPTS4528N] Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee by ShriManoj G Moryani, Adv & Shri Bhavesh M Moryani, Adv Revenue by Shri Pankaj Kumar, CIT DR Date of hearing 23.02.2026 Date of pronouncement 01.04.2026 PER KHETTRA MOHAN ROY, AM: 1. These three appeals are filed by assessee against the…

Shree Sant Bhojaji Maharaj Deosthan Ajansara, Wardha vs. Income Tax Officer (Exemption) -4, Nagpur

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is in ITA No

ITA 211/NAG/2025[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur01 Apr 2026AY 2015-2016

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh& Shri Khettra Mohan Roy

Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 250Section 263

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “DB” BENCH, NAGPUR BEFORE SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER& SHRI KHETTRA MOHAN ROY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No. 211/NAG/2025(AY 2015-16) Shree Sant Bhojaji Maharaj CIT(E), Pune at Nagpur Deosthan Ajansara Vs Saraf Chambers, Sadar, Ajansara, Wardha – 442001. Nagpur – 440001. [PAN: AAPTS4528N] Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee by ShriManoj G Moryani, Adv & Shri Bhavesh M Moryani, Adv Revenue by Shri Pankaj Kumar, CIT DR Date of hearing 23.02.2026 Date of pronouncement 01.04.2026 PER KHETTRA MOHAN ROY, AM: 1. These three appeals are filed by assessee against the…

Shree Sant Bhojaji Maharaj Deosthan Ajansara, Wardha vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), Pune at Ngp, Nagpur

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is in ITA No

ITA 186/NAG/2025[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur01 Apr 2026AY 2015-2016

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh& Shri Khettra Mohan Roy

Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 250Section 263

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “DB” BENCH, NAGPUR BEFORE SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER& SHRI KHETTRA MOHAN ROY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No. 211/NAG/2025(AY 2015-16) Shree Sant Bhojaji Maharaj CIT(E), Pune at Nagpur Deosthan Ajansara Vs Saraf Chambers, Sadar, Ajansara, Wardha – 442001. Nagpur – 440001. [PAN: AAPTS4528N] Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee by ShriManoj G Moryani, Adv & Shri Bhavesh M Moryani, Adv Revenue by Shri Pankaj Kumar, CIT DR Date of hearing 23.02.2026 Date of pronouncement 01.04.2026 PER KHETTRA MOHAN ROY, AM: 1. These three appeals are filed by assessee against the…

Gajanand Financial Consultancy Private Limited, Nagpur vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Central) Nagpur, Nagpur

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 126/NAG/2025[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur22 Sept 2025AY 2013-2014

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Shri Manoj G. MoryaniFor Respondent: Shri Pankaj Kumar
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 68

…5IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR BEFORE SHRI NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI K.M. ROY, ACCOUNTANT, MEMBER ITA no.126/Nag./2025 (Assessment Year : 2013–14) Gajanand Financial Consultancy Pvt. Ltd. N–86, MIDC, Hingna Road ……………. Appellant Nagpur 440 016 PAN – AADCG2049R v/s Principal Commissioner of Income Tax ……………. Respondent (Central), Nagpur Assessee by : Shri Manoj G. Moryani Revenue by : Shri Pankaj Kumar Date of Hearing – 23/06/2025 Date of Order – 22/09/2025 O R D E R PER K.M. ROY, A.M. By this appeal, the assessee has challenged the impugned order dated 05/0…

Anil Kumar Batar, Sikar vs. PCIT-Jaipur-2, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 418/JPR/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur09 Sept 2025AY 2018-19
For Appellant: Shri Shrawan Kumar Gupta, Adv. &For Respondent: Shri Gorav Avasthi, JCIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 147Section 263

…e present AO shall undertake that exercise after the assessment has been setaside for his consideration. Such a view or action is not well founded in the law or by various Hon'ble courts. Kindly refer direct decisions in case ofSmt. LeelaChoudhary v/s PR. CIT 289 ITR 226(Gau.) also refer,Saw Pipes Ltd v/s Add. PR. CIT 94 TTJ 1036(Del) Also refer Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. v/s PR. CIT 159 CTR(1)(SC), PR. CIT v/s Rayn Silk Mills 221 ITR 155(Guj.). 6. The assessee has also filed the affidavit of the tenant (PB 39-40) where he has clearly stated that he has not given any cash amount as an advance to him(assessee) in…

Sajjad Ali, Chittorgarh vs. DCIT(Intl)- Jaipur, Jaipur

ITA 459/JPR/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur24 Jun 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Shrawan Kumar Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Rajesh Ojha (CIT-DR)
Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 54

…present AO shall undertake that exercise after the assessment has been setaside for his consideration. Such a view or action is not well founded in the law or by various Hon’ble courts. Kindly refer direct decisions in case of Smt. Leela Choudhary v/s PR. CIT 289 ITR 226(Gau.) also refer, Saw Pipes Ltd v/s Add. PR. CIT 94 TTJ 1036(Del) Also refer Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. v/s PR. CIT 159 CTR(1)(SC), PR. CIT v/s Rayn Silk Mills 221 ITR 155(Guj.) Same view has been expressed in the case of Kamal Kumar Gupta v/s Pr. CIT 142 TTJ 9(Jp) wherein it has been held that “assessee was asked by the AO to file the 21 Sajj…

Arun Kumar Palawat, Jaipur vs. Pr CIT, Jaipur-1, Jaipur

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 144/JPR/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur11 Apr 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri R.K. Bhatra (CA) &For Respondent: Shri Ajey Malik, CIT D/R
Section 139Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”B” JAIPUR Jh lanhi xkslkbZ] U;kf;d lnL; ,oa Jh jkBkSM+ deys'k t;arHkkbZ] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM & SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 144/JP/2022 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Year : 2017-18. cuke Shri Arun Kumar Palawat, The PCIT, Vs. C/o M/s. Zari Silk India (P) Ltd., Jaipur-1, Narain Singh Circle, Jaipur. Jaipur. LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No. AAQPP 7460 D vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Shri R.K. Bhatra (CA) & S…

M/S. Pyrotech Electronics Pvt. Ltd., Udaipur vs. Pr. CIT, Udaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3/JODH/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur10 Jan 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran & Shri Sandeep Gosain

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 40A(2)(b)Section 44A

…Lodha Offset Ltd. vs. Pr. CIT ITA No. 155/Jodh/2018 19th March, 2020 14. Prateek Metals Pvt. Ltd. vs. Pr. CIT ITA No. 156/Jodh/2018 19th March, 2020 15. Nokha Agro Sevices vs. Pr. CIT ITA No. 171/Jodh/2018 20th March, 202 16. Smt. Leela Choudhary v/s PR. CIT 289 ITR 226(Gau.) also refer, Saw Pipes Ltd v/s Add. PR. CIT 94 TTJ 1036(Del) 17. Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. v/s PR. CIT 159 CTR(1)(SC), PR. CIT v/s Rayn Silk Mills 221 ITR 155(Guj.) 18. CIT v/s Paras Cotton Co. 288 ITR 211(Raj.) 19. Gaberial India Ltd. 203 ITR 108 (Bom) 20. CIT v/s Ganpat Ram Bishnoi 296 ITR 292(Raj.) 8 ITA 3/JODH/2021 PYEROTECH ELECTRON…

Sandeep Hooda, New Delhi vs. Pr.CIT - 7, New Delhi

The appeal is allowed and the impugned order dated 30

ITA 397/DEL/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Aug 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Shri Anubhav Sharmasandeep Hooda, Vs. Pr. Cit-7, C/O. Rra Taxindia, D-28, South New Delhi Extension, Part-I, New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aacph5453J

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Shri H. K. Choudhary, CIT DR
Section 143Section 143(3)Section 263Section 27Section 48Section 50Section 500(1)Section 50CSection 50C(2)Section 50c(2)

…when question was subject matter of appeal it is deemed that all the facts in regard to the question have been considered and dealt by the appellate authorities..:- • Sonal Garments vs. Jt. CIT, (2005) 95 ITD 0363 (Mum) • Saw Pipes Ltd. vs. Addl. CIT, (2005) 94 TTJ 1036 (Del) • Sahara India Savings & Investment Corporation Ltd. vs. Asstt. CIT, (2004) 90 TTJ 0878 (Lkw) • Sahara India Mutual Benefit Co. Ltd. vs. Asstt. CIT, (2002) 74 TTJ 0067 (All) • Hooghly Mills Co. Ltd. vs. Asstt. CIT, (1999) 71 ITD 0264 (Cal) • Sadhu Ram & Sons vs. CIT & Anr., (2007) 108 TTJ 0373 (Asr) • Marico Industries Ltd. vs. Asstt. CIT,…

Shri Radha Govind Lashkari, Jaipur vs. PCIT-2, Jaipur

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 32/JPR/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur12 Apr 2022AY 2015-16
For Appellant: Shri S.R. Sharma (CA) and Shri R.K. Bhatra, (CA)For Respondent: Smt. Savita Bundas, (CIT D/R)
Section 139Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263

…nt AO shall undertake that exercise after the assessment has been set aside for his consideration. Such a view or action is not well founded in the law or by various Hon’ble Courts. Kindly refer direct decisions in case of Smt. Leela Choudhary v/s PR. CIT 289 ITR 226(Gau.). Also refer Saw Pipes Ltd v/s Add. PR. CIT 94 TTJ 1036 (Del), Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. v/s PR. CIT 159 CTR(1)(SC), PR. CIT v/s Rayn Silk Mills 221 ITR 155(Guj.). Same view has been expressed in the case of Kamal Kumar Gupta v/s Pr. CIT 142 TTJ 9(Jp) wherein it has been held that “assessee was asked by the AO to file the details of tra…

M/S. Roquette India Private Ltd., Mumbai vs. The Pr. CIT-3, Ahmedabad

Appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 116/AHD/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad25 Mar 2022AY 2016-17
For Appellant: Shri P.D. Shah, C.AFor Respondent: Shri A.P. Singh, CIT/DR
Section 139Section 263Section 32Section 32(1)Section 32(1)(iia)Section 32ASection 40

…by the AO, after considering the submissions /contentions of the assessee made before him. 17. The reliance placed by the Ld.Counsel for the assessee in this regard on the decision of the Hon’ble Guahati High Court in the case of Smt. Lila Choudhury vs. CIT 289 ITR 226 is apt wherein it has been held so as under: “ This would bring the Court to the core issue in the case i.e., whether the impugned order dt. 1st Nov., 1996, setting aside the assessment and directing a fresh assessment has been made without recording any firm conclusion that the assessment order is erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of…

M/S Fortune Metaliks Limited, Ludhiana vs. Pr.CIT(Central), Ludhiana

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 82/CHANDI/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh09 Mar 2022AY 2016-17
For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sandeep Dahiya, CIT-DR Khanna
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 263(1)Section 56(2)Section 56(2)(vii)

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण,च"डीगढ़ "यायपीठ च"डीगढ़ "यायपीठ ‘‘ए’, च"डीगढ़ च"डीगढ़ आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण च"डीगढ़ "यायपीठ च"डीगढ़ "यायपीठ च"डीगढ़ च"डीगढ़ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CHANDIGARH BENCH ‘A’ CHANDIGARH BEFORE: SMT. DIVA SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं./ ITA No. 82/CHD/2021 आयकर आयकर आयकर अपील अपील िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" / A.Y : 2016-17 िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" M/s Fortune Metaliks Limited, The Pr.CIT (Central), बनाम Opp. Circuit House, Ferozepur Road, Ludhiana. VS Ludhiana. "थायी लेखा सं./PAN /TAN No: AABCF3202D अप…

Anheuser Busch Inbev India Ltd., Mumbai vs. Pr. CIT-Circle-1, Mumbai

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 942/MUM/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jan 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Rajan VoraFor Respondent: Ms. Shailja Rai
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 37Section 37(1)

…interests of the Revenue. But that by itself will not be enough to vest the Commissioner with the power of suo-motu revision because the first requirement, viz., that the order is erroneous, is absent.” (Emphasis supplied)  Smt. Lila Choudhury v. CIT [2008] 289 ITR 226 (Gau)(HC) (Refer Page No 107-113 of the legal paperbook “An erroneous order does not mean a wrong order; it does not mean an order with which the Commissioner is unable to agree. An erroneous order would be an order which suffers from a patent lack of jurisdiction; the error must be with reference to jurisdiction. Prejudicial to the interest of t…

Anheuser Busch Inbev India Ltd., Mumbai vs. Pr CIT, Circle-1, Mumbai

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 941/MUM/2021[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jan 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Rajan VoraFor Respondent: Ms. Shailja Rai
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 37Section 37(1)

…interests of the Revenue. But that by itself will not be enough to vest the Commissioner with the power of suo-motu revision because the first requirement, viz., that the order is erroneous, is absent.” (Emphasis supplied)  Smt. Lila Choudhury v. CIT [2008] 289 ITR 226 (Gau)(HC) (Refer Page No 107-113 of the legal paperbook “An erroneous order does not mean a wrong order; it does not mean an order with which the Commissioner is unable to agree. An erroneous order would be an order which suffers from a patent lack of jurisdiction; the error must be with reference to jurisdiction. Prejudicial to the interest of t…

Ashutosh Bhargava, Jaipur vs. Pr.CIT-2, Jaipur

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 20/JPR/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur06 Jan 2022AY 2016-17
For Appellant: Shri Shravan Kr. Gupta (Adv)For Respondent: Shri B.K. Gupta (Pr.CIT-DR)
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 271BSection 44ASection 54E

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES “B”, JAIPUR Jh ,u-ds-lSuh] mik/;{k ,oa Jh lanhi x®lkÃa] U;kf;d lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: SHRI N.K. SAINI, VICE PRESIDENT & SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 20/JP/2021 Assessment Year: 2016-17 cuke Shri Ashutosh Bhargava, Pr.CIT-2, Vs. B-801, C-22, Trimurty Dave Jaipur. Apartment, Jai Singh Highway, Banipark, Jaipur (Raj)-302016. PAN No.: AAPPB 4152 K vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Shri Shravan Kr. Gupta (Adv) jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue by : Shri B.K. Gupta (Pr.CIT-D…

Jindal Steel & Power Ltd., Hisar vs. CIT, Hisar

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1462/DEL/2016[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Nov 2021AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Salil Kapoor, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. S. Najmi, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 263Section 263(2)Section 80

…nd no other aspect of that issue can be subjected to revision under section 263 of the Act: Oil India Ltd. v. CIT, Calcutta: 138 ITR 836 Smt. Sujatha Grower v. DICT: 74 TTJ 347 Sahara India Mutual Benefit Co. Ltd v. ACIT: 74 TTJ 67 Saw Pipes Limited v. ACIT: 94 TTJ 1036 Sonal Garments v. JCIT: 95 ITD 363 Maricolndustries Ltd. v. ACIT: 115 TTJ 497 In view of the aforesaid, the assessment order qua the issues/ claim, which was subject matter of appeal before the CIT(A) and ITAT (deduction under sections 80IA and 80IB of the Act), merged with the order of the CIT(A). Consequently, the said claim/ issue(s) 14 ITA…

Palsana Gram Sewa Sahkari Samiti Ltd., Jaipur vs. PCIT-2, Jaipur

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

ITA 37/JPR/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur02 Nov 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 35 To 37/Jp/2021 Assessment Years: 2010-11 To 2012-13 Palsana Gram Sewa Sahkari Samiti Cuke Pr.Cit-2, Vs. Limited, Jaipur. Village- Palsana Main Market, Palsana, Dist.- Sikar- 332402 (Raj) Pan No.: Aabap 8390 A Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By : Shri Shrawan Kr. Gupta (Adv) Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By : Shri B.K. Gupta (Pr.Cit-Dr) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 04/08/2021 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 02/11/2021 Vkns'K@ Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. These Are The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Separate Order Of The Ld. Pr.Cit-2, Jaipur All Dated 31/03/2021 Passed U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short, The Act) For The A.Y. 2010-11 To 2012-13. 2. The Hearing Of The Appeal Was Concluded Through Video Conference In View Of The Prevailing Situation Of Covid-19 Pandemic.

For Appellant: Shri Shrawan Kr. Gupta (Adv)For Respondent: Shri B.K. Gupta (Pr.CIT-DR)
Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)

…present AO shall undertake that exercise after the assessment has been setaside for his consideration. Such a view or action is not well founded in the law or by various Hon’ble courts. Kindly refer direct decisions in case of Smt. Leela Choudhary v/s PR. CIT 289 ITR 226(Gau.) also refer, Saw Pipes Ltd v/s Add. PR. CIT 94 TTJ 1036(Del) Also refer Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. v/s PR. CIT 159 CTR(1)(SC), PR. CIT v/s Rayn Silk Mills 221 ITR 155(Guj.) Same view has been expressed in the case of Kamal Kumar Gupta v/s Pr. CIT 142 TTJ 9(Jp) wherein it has been held that “assessee was asked by the AO to file the details…

Palsana Gram Sewa Sahkari Samiti Ltd., Palasana vs. PCIT-2, Jaipur

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

ITA 36/JPR/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur02 Nov 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 35 To 37/Jp/2021 Assessment Years: 2010-11 To 2012-13 Palsana Gram Sewa Sahkari Samiti Cuke Pr.Cit-2, Vs. Limited, Jaipur. Village- Palsana Main Market, Palsana, Dist.- Sikar- 332402 (Raj) Pan No.: Aabap 8390 A Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By : Shri Shrawan Kr. Gupta (Adv) Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By : Shri B.K. Gupta (Pr.Cit-Dr) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 04/08/2021 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 02/11/2021 Vkns'K@ Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. These Are The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Separate Order Of The Ld. Pr.Cit-2, Jaipur All Dated 31/03/2021 Passed U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short, The Act) For The A.Y. 2010-11 To 2012-13. 2. The Hearing Of The Appeal Was Concluded Through Video Conference In View Of The Prevailing Situation Of Covid-19 Pandemic.

For Appellant: Shri Shrawan Kr. Gupta (Adv)For Respondent: Shri B.K. Gupta (Pr.CIT-DR)
Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)

…present AO shall undertake that exercise after the assessment has been setaside for his consideration. Such a view or action is not well founded in the law or by various Hon’ble courts. Kindly refer direct decisions in case of Smt. Leela Choudhary v/s PR. CIT 289 ITR 226(Gau.) also refer, Saw Pipes Ltd v/s Add. PR. CIT 94 TTJ 1036(Del) Also refer Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. v/s PR. CIT 159 CTR(1)(SC), PR. CIT v/s Rayn Silk Mills 221 ITR 155(Guj.) Same view has been expressed in the case of Kamal Kumar Gupta v/s Pr. CIT 142 TTJ 9(Jp) wherein it has been held that “assessee was asked by the AO to file the details…

Palsana Gram Sewa Sahkari Samiti Ltd., Palsana vs. PCIT-2, Jaipur

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

ITA 35/JPR/2021[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur02 Nov 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 35 To 37/Jp/2021 Assessment Years: 2010-11 To 2012-13 Palsana Gram Sewa Sahkari Samiti Cuke Pr.Cit-2, Vs. Limited, Jaipur. Village- Palsana Main Market, Palsana, Dist.- Sikar- 332402 (Raj) Pan No.: Aabap 8390 A Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By : Shri Shrawan Kr. Gupta (Adv) Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By : Shri B.K. Gupta (Pr.Cit-Dr) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 04/08/2021 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 02/11/2021 Vkns'K@ Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. These Are The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Separate Order Of The Ld. Pr.Cit-2, Jaipur All Dated 31/03/2021 Passed U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short, The Act) For The A.Y. 2010-11 To 2012-13. 2. The Hearing Of The Appeal Was Concluded Through Video Conference In View Of The Prevailing Situation Of Covid-19 Pandemic.

For Appellant: Shri Shrawan Kr. Gupta (Adv)For Respondent: Shri B.K. Gupta (Pr.CIT-DR)
Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)

…present AO shall undertake that exercise after the assessment has been setaside for his consideration. Such a view or action is not well founded in the law or by various Hon’ble courts. Kindly refer direct decisions in case of Smt. Leela Choudhary v/s PR. CIT 289 ITR 226(Gau.) also refer, Saw Pipes Ltd v/s Add. PR. CIT 94 TTJ 1036(Del) Also refer Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. v/s PR. CIT 159 CTR(1)(SC), PR. CIT v/s Rayn Silk Mills 221 ITR 155(Guj.) Same view has been expressed in the case of Kamal Kumar Gupta v/s Pr. CIT 142 TTJ 9(Jp) wherein it has been held that “assessee was asked by the AO to file the details…

Sun and Sun Inframetric Pvt. Ltd., Raipur vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Raipur

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

ITA 22/RPR/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur25 Oct 2021AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri N. K. Choudhryआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.22/Rpr/2021 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2016-17)

For Appellant: Shri P.K. Mishra, CIT-DRFor Respondent: 30.07.2021
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 40A(3)Section 43CSection 68

…pected to make necessary enquiries as he may consider expedient, confront the material sought to be relied upon; followed by a speaking order. 13.5 Pertinent to note that the Hon’ble Gauhati High Court in the case of Smt. Lila Choudhury Vs. CIT & Ors, (2007) 289 ITR 226 (Gauhati) has befittingly echoed that defense canvassed by the assessee in response to notice under Section 263 of the Act must be considered and examined to Sun & Sun Inframetric Pvt Ltd Vs. PCIT AY : 2016-2017 shun symbolic exercise of powers in a nonchalant and routine manner. The reasons are not far to seek. The issues raised in the show-caus…

Smt. Leela Choudhary v. PR. CIT (289 ITR 226) — Cited in 25 Judgments | BharatTax