Virbhadra Singh (HUF) v. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax

400 ITR 530High Court2018#17941 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2018 to 2025.

Sections most often in play

Section 144B Section 147 Section 148 Section 263 Section 69

Judgments citing Virbhadra Singh (HUF) v. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax

MOHAMMED MANNAN ABDUL,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-7(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 249/HYD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad30 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

For Appellant: CA Murali Mohan RaoFor Respondent: Ms. M. Narmada, CIT-DR

Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 69

…s rightly set-aside the assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer by exercising powers conferred u/sec.263 of the Act. In this regard, she relied upon Judgment of Hon’ble Himachal Pradesh High Court in the case of Virbhadra Singh (HUF) vs., PCIT [2018] 400 ITR 530 (H.P.). 7. We have heard both the parties, perused the material on record and the orders of the authorities below. We find that, the PCIT has power to set-aside the assessment order in terms of sec.263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, in case the PCIT is satisfied that the assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer is erroneous in so far as it…

TWARA DIAM,BHAVNAGAR vs. PCIT AHMEDABAD-1, AHMEDABAD

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

ITA 90/AHD/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad15 May 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Waseem Ahmed

For Appellant: Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr. Adv., Shri Parimalsinh BFor Respondent: Shri Karun K Ojha, CIT D.R

Section 115BSection 133ASection 143(3)Section 263Section 69A

…taken in revision by the Commissioner if it is found that the order passed was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue.” 13. Likewise, the Hon’ble Himachal Pradesh High Court in case of Virbhadra Singh HUF vs. PCIT reported in 86 taxmann.com 113/400 ITR 530 has held as under: “69. Perusal of order dated 28.3.2013, passed by the Assessing Officer, reveals that the original return filed by the Assessee was selected for scrutiny assessment through CASS and notice under Section 143(2) of the Act issued and served upon the Assessee on 29.8.2011. On 2.3.2012, in exercise of his right under Section 139(5),…

MUZAFFER MAHMOOD KHAN,,AURANGABAD vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX -2,, AURANGABAD

In the result, the appeal of assessee is dismissed

ITA 895/PUN/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune10 Jan 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

For Appellant: Shri K. SrinivasanFor Respondent: Shri S.B. Prasad

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 54BSection 54F

…arimal Jain (supra) is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case. 10 ITA No.895/PUN/2019, A.Y. 2014-15 16. Coming to the decision of Hon’ble High Court of Himachal Pradesh in the case of Virbhandra Singh (HUF) Vs. Pr. CIT reported in 400 ITR 530 as relied on by the ld. DR we note that the Hon’ble High of Himachal Pradesh was pleased to hold that sub-section (1) of section 263 confers sufficient powers upon the Commissioner to decide all the issues of law by recording its satisfaction. The said power is wide enough to take in its sweep action of modifying, cancelling or directing fresh as…

SHREE MALGANGADEVI SAHAKARI PATPEDHI MARYADIT,MUMBAI vs. PRINCIPLE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 29, MUMBAI

Accordingly, the grounds raised by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1074/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Nov 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am & Shri Ram Lal Negi, Jm आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 1074/Mum/2019 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2014-15)

For Respondent: Shri Sushil Kumar Poddar

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “G” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, AM & SHRI RAM LAL NEGI, JM आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 1074/Mum/2019 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2014-15) PCIT 29 Shree Malgangadevi C/10, Pratyakshkar Sahkari Patpedhi Maryadit Bhavan, Bandra Kurla Shop No. 9, B wing, Shiv बिधम/ Complex, Mumbai-400 051 Sagar Complex Vs. Tembhipada Road, Ashok Kedare Chowk, Bhandup west, Mumbai-400 078 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN No. AAAAM2162L (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : अपीलाथीकीओरसे/ Appellant Shri Ruturaj H. Gujar AR : by प्रत्यथीकीओरसे/Respondentby : Shri Sushil Kumar Pod…

DEKINSONS ASSOCIATES,,SANGLI vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX : 1,, KOLHAPUR

In the result, the appeal of assessee is dismissed

ITA 727/PUN/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune19 Nov 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm

For Appellant: N O N EFor Respondent: Shri S.B. Prasad

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263

…of Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax and to further support the same placed reliance on the following decisions : i. Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, 243 ITR 83 (SC); ii. Virbhadra Singh (HUF) Vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, 400 ITR 530 (HP); iii. Gopisons Developers Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ACIT in ITA No. 356/PN/2012 for assessment year 2006-07 decided on 03-07-2013. 4 ITA No. 727/PUN/2016, A.Y. 2012-13 5. We have heard the submissions made by ld. DR and have perused the impugned order. There is no material on record controverting the findings of Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax. Under su…