Tulsi Tracom Private Limited v. CIT

161 DTR 148High Court2018#13531 most cited
7

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 348,615 Indian tax judgments — from 2022 to 2025.

Sections most often in play

Section 263Section 269-UDSection 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 37(I)

Issues it is cited on

section 269principal commissioner of income-taxsection 263section 26transferindiadocumentinterest

Judgments citing Tulsi Tracom Private Limited v. CIT

Sinwan Ahmad Shah, Agra vs. PCIT-1, Agra

ITA 55/AGR/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Agra24 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: : Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Sunil Kumar Singhassessment Year: 2017-18

Section 263

…inciples of natural justice, we do not Activate Windows think we can remand the matter to the Appropriate Authority. We must set its orders aside.” 7. Identical view was taken by Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Tulsi Tracom Private Ltd .v. CIT (2018) 161 DTR 148 (Delhi)(HC), wherein Hon’ble High Court held that the Commissioner who had issued order u/s. 6 | P a g e ITA No.53 to 55 and 151 & 100/Agr/2022 263 ought to have been fully satisfied that adequate opportunity had been given to the assessee to controvert the facts stated in the notice and to explain the situation concerning such facts. Further…

Shri. Sudhir Bansal, Agra vs. PCIT-1 Agra, Agra

ITA 54/AGR/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Agra24 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: : Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Sunil Kumar Singhassessment Year: 2017-18

Section 263

…inciples of natural justice, we do not Activate Windows think we can remand the matter to the Appropriate Authority. We must set its orders aside.” 7. Identical view was taken by Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Tulsi Tracom Private Ltd .v. CIT (2018) 161 DTR 148 (Delhi)(HC), wherein Hon’ble High Court held that the Commissioner who had issued order u/s. 6 | P a g e ITA No.53 to 55 and 151 & 100/Agr/2022 263 ought to have been fully satisfied that adequate opportunity had been given to the assessee to controvert the facts stated in the notice and to explain the situation concerning such facts. Further…

Smt. Ritu Bansal, Agra vs. PCIT-1, Agra

ITA 53/AGR/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Agra24 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: : Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Sunil Kumar Singhassessment Year: 2017-18

Section 263

…inciples of natural justice, we do not Activate Windows think we can remand the matter to the Appropriate Authority. We must set its orders aside.” 7. Identical view was taken by Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Tulsi Tracom Private Ltd .v. CIT (2018) 161 DTR 148 (Delhi)(HC), wherein Hon’ble High Court held that the Commissioner who had issued order u/s. 6 | P a g e ITA No.53 to 55 and 151 & 100/Agr/2022 263 ought to have been fully satisfied that adequate opportunity had been given to the assessee to controvert the facts stated in the notice and to explain the situation concerning such facts. Further…

Shree Blaji Concast Pvt.Ltd., Aligarh vs. Pr.CIT-1, Agra

ITA 151/AGR/2022[2017-17]Status: DisposedITAT Agra24 Apr 2025AY 2017-17

Bench: : Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Sunil Kumar Singhassessment Year: 2017-18

Section 263

…inciples of natural justice, we do not Activate Windows think we can remand the matter to the Appropriate Authority. We must set its orders aside.” 7. Identical view was taken by Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Tulsi Tracom Private Ltd .v. CIT (2018) 161 DTR 148 (Delhi)(HC), wherein Hon’ble High Court held that the Commissioner who had issued order u/s. 6 | P a g e ITA No.53 to 55 and 151 & 100/Agr/2022 263 ought to have been fully satisfied that adequate opportunity had been given to the assessee to controvert the facts stated in the notice and to explain the situation concerning such facts. Further…

Ganpati Enterprises, Agra vs. Pr.CIT.-1, Agra

ITA 100/AGR/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Agra24 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: : Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Sunil Kumar Singhassessment Year: 2017-18

Section 263

…inciples of natural justice, we do not Activate Windows think we can remand the matter to the Appropriate Authority. We must set its orders aside.” 7. Identical view was taken by Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Tulsi Tracom Private Ltd .v. CIT (2018) 161 DTR 148 (Delhi)(HC), wherein Hon’ble High Court held that the Commissioner who had issued order u/s. 6 | P a g e ITA No.53 to 55 and 151 & 100/Agr/2022 263 ought to have been fully satisfied that adequate opportunity had been given to the assessee to controvert the facts stated in the notice and to explain the situation concerning such facts. Further…

Vaneet Gupta, S.O. Sh. Chattur Bhuj Gupta, #214, Sector-06, Panchkula vs. PCIT Panchkula Jurisdictional Assessing Officer ITO Ward 5, Panchkula

In the result, Assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 560/CHANDI/2024[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh20 Jan 2025AY 2011-2012

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Dr Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 560/Chd/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12 Vaneet Gupta, Vs. The Ito, बनाम S.O. Shri Chattur Bhuj Ward 5, Gupta, Panchkula # 214, Sector 6, Panchkula "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Aphpg0692N अपीलाथ"/ Appellant ""यथ"/ Repsondent ( Hybrid Hearing ) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Sudhir Sehgal, Advocate राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue By : Smt. Kusum Bansal, Cit Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 04.12.2024 उदघोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 20.01.2025 आदेश/Order Per Krinwant Sahay, A.M.:

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum Bansal, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 263

…sdiction to expand the scope of notice u/s 263. There is a limitation of two years for the purposes of initiating the proceedings u/s 263, as per the Act as per the judgment of Delhi High Court in the case of ‘Tulsi Tracom Private Limited vs. CIT’ reported in 161 DTR 148 (Del). Notice issued by the PCIT on 17.2.2022 brining in new issues was beyond two years from the end of the assessment year in which the assessment was made. Therefore, the second notice of 17.2.2022 was not a valid one. Accordingly, the order as passed by the PCIT is quashed on this issue as well. 22. Even on merits, we have examined the argume…

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…

Tulsi Tracom Private Limited v. CIT (161 DTR 148) — Cited in 7 Judgments | BharatTax