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

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 allowed

ITA 21/RPR/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur22 Oct 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri N. K. Choudhryआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.21/Rpr/2021 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2015-16)

For Appellant: Shri P.K. Mishra, CIT-DRFor Respondent: 30.07.2021
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 40A(3)Section 43CSection 56(2)(viib)Section 69C

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “RAIPUR” BENCH, RAIPUR BEFORE SHRI PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI N. K. CHOUDHRY, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.21/RPR/2021 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2015-16) Sun and Sun Inframetric Pvt Ltd बनाम/ Assistant Commissioner of 11/146, Chikni Mandir, Malviya Income-tax, Vs. Road, Raipur, Chhattisgarh Central Circle-1, Raipur "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./PAN/GIR No. : AACCN 1338 F .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) Shri Prafulla Pendse, CA अपीलाथ" ओर से /Appellant by : Shri P.K. Mishra, CIT-DR ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent by : 30.07.2021 सुनव…

Nuwave Esolutions Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. CIT, New Delhi

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3231/DEL/2013[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Dec 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri G. D. Agrawal & Ms Suchitra Kamblenuwave Esolutions Pvt. Ltd. Vs Cit(A) 3Rd Floor, District Centre, Delhi-V Dda Building, Nehru Place New Delhi New Delhi Aabcn5790Q (Respondent) (Appellant)

Section 10Section 10ASection 143(3)Section 148Section 263Section 40Section 92

…s (P) Ltd. 309 ITR 67 (Guj) iii. Marical Industries Ltd. Vs. Asstt. CIT(A) (2008) 5 DTR 263. iv. Sadhu Ram & Sons Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax & Anr. (2007) 108 TTJ (Asr) 373. v. Sonal Garments vs Jt. CIT 95 ITD 363(Mum) (2005) vi. Saw Pipes Ltd vs Add. CIT 94 TTJ 1036(Del) vii. Hoogly Mills vs ACIT 71 ITD 264 (Cal) viii. Sahara India Mutual vs CIT 74 TTJ 67 (All) ix. Sahara vs CIT 90 TTJ 878(A11) x. Sheena Industries vs CIT (Del)(Trib) The Ld AR further submitted that the case of CIT is that Assessing Officer ought to have done more detailed enquiry which cannot be the basis for revision as held in case of CI…

Gettwell Health & Education Samiti, Bharatpur vs. CIT-Exemption, Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 638/JPR/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur26 Oct 2018AY 2014-15
For Appellant: Shri P.C. Parwal (CA)For Respondent: Shri B.K. Gupta (CIT)
Section 11Section 12ASection 13(1)(c)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 254Section 263

…on the order passed U/s 12AA(1)(b) of the Act and consequential impugned revision order are not valid and liable to be quashed. He has relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Gauhati High Court decision in the case of Smt. Lalita Chaoudhary Vs CIT & ors. (2007) 289 ITR 226. 4. On the other hand, the ld CIT-DR has submitted that the Assessing Officer while completing the assessment U/s 143(3) of the Act has not conducted due enquiry on the issue of income from medical shop and payment of rent by the assessee society to B.L. Ranwa (HUF) and therefore, the order passed by the Assessing Officer is erroneous so far as…

Great Heights Infratech Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. Pr. CIT, Central- 2, New Delhi

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 2393/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Sept 2018AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri Hiren Mehta, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Sanjeet Singh, CIT-D.R
Section 132Section 22Section 263

…. adopted by the Ld. CIT was not found favourable in favour of the Revenue as held by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Pr. CIT vs. Delhi Airport Metro Express Pvt. Ltd., (supra). The Hon’ble Gauhati High Court in the case of Leela Choudhary vs. CIT 289 ITR 226 held that Order passed under section 263 of the I.T. Act without considering the reply of the assessee would not be valid. In the instant case, the assessee- company produced sufficient evidence and material before the Ld. CIT in support of the contention that rental income is in fact “Business Income” of the assessee-company which have been corr…

Great Heights Infratech Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. Pr. CIT, Central- 2, New Delhi

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 2392/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Sept 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri Hiren Mehta, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Sanjeet Singh, CIT-D.R
Section 132Section 22Section 263

…. adopted by the Ld. CIT was not found favourable in favour of the Revenue as held by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Pr. CIT vs. Delhi Airport Metro Express Pvt. Ltd., (supra). The Hon’ble Gauhati High Court in the case of Leela Choudhary vs. CIT 289 ITR 226 held that Order passed under section 263 of the I.T. Act without considering the reply of the assessee would not be valid. In the instant case, the assessee- company produced sufficient evidence and material before the Ld. CIT in support of the contention that rental income is in fact “Business Income” of the assessee-company which have been corr…