← All Phrases

“lack of enquiry”

Rectification & RevisionSection 263Section 263780 judgments

The decision most relied on for lack of enquiry is Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. v. CIT (243 ITR 83), cited in 2,943 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on lack of enquiry

Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. v. CIT
243 ITR 83 · 2000 · Supreme Court
2,943
citing judgments

For revision under Section 263, the Assessing Officer's order must be both erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the revenue; if either condition is not met, the revisionary jurisdiction cannot be invoked. An order is not erroneous merely because the Assessing Officer did not record the details of enquiries conducted, provided due enquiries were made.

CIT v. Sunbeam Auto Ltd.
332 ITR 167 · 2011 · High Court
897
citing judgments

The Commissioner cannot revise an assessment under Section 263 merely because the assessment order does not explicitly reflect an inquiry, or because the Commissioner holds a different opinion. An inquiry, even if considered inadequate, or an assessment based on a plausible view by the Assessing Officer after due examination, does not automatically make the order erroneous or prejudicial to the interests of the revenue.

ITO v. D.G. Housing Projects Ltd.
343 ITR 329 · 2012 · High Court
438
citing judgments

For exercising revisional jurisdiction under Section 263, the Commissioner must first find that the Assessing Officer's order is erroneous and unsustainable in law, as this is a condition precedent. An order is not erroneous merely because two views are possible, or if the Commissioner disagrees with the Assessing Officer's permissible view, or to simply remit the matter for further enquiries.

CIT v. Vikas Polymers
341 ITR 537 · 2012 · High Court
318
citing judgments

An assessment order is not erroneous and prejudicial under Section 263 merely because the Assessing Officer did not record an enquiry and its satisfactory answer in the assessment order, provided such an enquiry was conducted. For revision under Section 263, the Commissioner must also provide the assessee an opportunity of being heard and examine their explanation.

CIT v. Anil Kumar Sharma
335 ITR 83 · 2011 · High Court
264
citing judgments

The Commissioner cannot invoke Section 263 for an assessment merely because of an inadequate inquiry by the Assessing Officer, provided there was some inquiry or the record demonstrates application of mind, as this constitutes a mere difference of opinion.

Narayan Tatu Rane v. ITO
70 Taxmann.com 227 · 2016 · ITAT
220
citing judgments

Before revising an assessment order under Section 263, the CIT/PCIT must conduct their own inquiries or verifications to establish that the Assessing Officer's order is erroneous and unsustainable in law, rather than merely directing further inquiry or pointing out the AO's lack of inquiry.

DIT v. Jyoti Foundation
357 ITR 388 · 2013 · High Court
210
citing judgments

An assessment order cannot be deemed erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue under Section 263 if the Assessing Officer conducted an inquiry and applied their mind during the original assessment, as Explanation 2 to Section 263 does not permit unending inquiries by the revisional authority.

CIT v. Infosys Technologies Ltd.
341 ITR 293 · 2012 · High Court
205
citing judgments

A Commissioner can revise an assessment order under Section 263 if it is erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the revenue. This includes cases where the Assessing Officer fails to make further inquiries before accepting the assessee's statements in the return.

Judgments citing lack of enquiry

Hitkari and Swaraj Enterprises Private Limited, Barmer vs. Pr. CIT-1, Jodhpur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 61/JODH/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur24 Jan 2023AY 2016-17

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

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

Tribunal, found that there was no enquiry by the Assessing Officer on the issues raised by the CIT. It was held that the lack of enquiry or inadequate enquiry by the Assessing Officer was a valid reason for revision of the assessment order. The Id. Tribunal further held that ... same has been duly examined by the AO and even the ld PCIT has not recorded any adverse findings in terms of lack of enquiry or inadequate enquiry on part of the AO. In light of aforesaid discussions, we hereby set-aside the order passed by the ld PCIT

S N Tradelink Private Limited, Surat vs. Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Surat

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 77/SRT/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Surat24 Jan 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.77/Srt/2022 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: (2017-18) (Physical Court Hearing) S. N. Tradelink Private Limited, Principal Commissioner Of 3010-3011 Momai Complex, Income Tax-1, Room No. 114, 1St Kadodra Road, Umarvada, Surat – Vs. Floor, Aaykar Bhawan, 395010. Majura Gate, Opp New Civil Hospital, Surat-395001 (Appellant) (Respondent) "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aakcs0060R

Section 115BSection 131Section 133ASection 139Section 143(3)Section 263Section 271ASection 69C

accepting the explanation given by the assessee. It cannot be said to be a case of ITA 77/SRT/2022/AY.2017-18 S. N. Tradelink Pvt. Ltd. lack of enquiry. We accordingly, answer Question No. 2 in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. " (Emphasis supplied)." 23. In view of the facts

M/S.Roads and Bridges Development Corpn of Kerala Ltd, Ernakulam vs. The ACIT, Kochi

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 33/COCH/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin20 Jan 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2016-17

For Appellant: Ms. Remya S Menon, CAFor Respondent: Smt. J M Jamuna Devi, Sr DR
Section 139(1)Section 139(3)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 32(2)Section 72(1)

various audit requirements and statutory procedures before the tax audit report can be finalised and uploaded. The Ld.AR submitted that there is no lack of enquiry on the part of the AO which can be evident from the fact that the AO had called for various details and made enquiries ... respect to the depreciation of intangible assets. Therefore the order of the AO cannot be held to be erroneous on the ground of lack of enquiry. The Ld.AR Page 7 of 8 submitted that carry forward of loss claimed by the company which has been disallowed by the AO against

Blue Moana Developers Private Limited, Vazuthacaud vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Trivandrum

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 284/COCH/2021[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin20 Jan 2023AY 2015-2016

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Ms. Padmavathy S.Assessment Year : 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Raja Kannan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri M. Rajasekhar, CIT(DR)
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 263

facts, we are of the considered view that the action of the PCIT holding the order of the AO to be erroneous for lack of enquiry on the part of the AO with regard to issues which are beyond the scope of limited scrutiny is not tenable. Accordingly, we quash

Gaurang Metals P Ltd, Indore vs. The PCIT-1, Indore

ITA 78/IND/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Indore20 Jan 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shrib.M. Biyaniassessment Year: 2017-18 Gaurang Metals Pvt. Ltd. Pr. Cit-1 बनाम/ Indore Indore Vs. (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent / Revenue) Pan: Aabcg2498Q Assesseeby Shri S.N. Agrawal & Shri Pankaj Mogra, Ars Revenue By Shri P.K. Mishra, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 18.11.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 20.01.2023

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263

disallowance u/s 14A and the assessee has also made sufficient replies. Therefore, it cannot be said that there is any kind of lack of enquiry. We further note that the legality of contention of assessee that the disallowance was attracted upto Rs. 21,086/- only being the amount of exempt

Raj Abhishek Corporation, Surat vs. Pr. CIT-1, Surat

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 117/SRT/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Surat16 Jan 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.117/Srt/2022 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2017-18) (Physical Court Hearing) Raj Abhishek Corporation Principal Commissioner Of Income 501,Kohinoortextiles Market, Tax, Surat-1, Room No.123, Aaykar Vs. Ring Road, Surat-395002 Bhavan, Majura Gate, Surat—395002 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aajfr 6297 D (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा"रती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Ketan Jagirdar, C.A राज"व क" ओर से /Respondent By : Shri Ashok B. Koli, Cit-D.R

For Appellant: Shri Ketan Jagirdar, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Ashok B. Koli, CIT-D.R
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 80Section 80I

matter to the Assessing Officer to decide whether the findings recorded are erroneous. In cases where there is inadequate enquiry but not lack of enquiry, again the CIT must give and record a finding that the order/inquiry made is erroneous. This can happen if an enquiry and verification is conducted

Atul Kumar Anchalia, Jaora vs. PCIT-1, Indore

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee is hereby dismissed

ITA 63/IND/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Indore03 Jan 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member), Shri B.M. Biyani (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Manish Dafaria, C.AFor Respondent: Shri P.K. Mishra, CIT-DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 2(14)Section 263

case is one where the impugned order of assessment is erroneous as well as prejudicial to the interest of revenue on account of lack of enquiry and application of mind to the facts of the case by the Assessing Officer." 6. In our considered opinion, the Ld. PCIT has rightly

Mylan Pharmaceuticals Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. ITO Ward-16(3), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 122/HYD/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad26 Dec 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2016-17 Mylan Pharmaceuticals Vs. Ito,Ward-16(3) Private Limited I.T.Towers, Ac Guards Plot No.564/A/22, Masab Tank Road No.92 Hyderabad-500 004 Jubillee Hills, Hyderabad Telangana-500 096

For Appellant: Shri P.V.S.S.Prasad, CAFor Respondent: Shri Jeevan Lal Lavidiya,CIT-DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 37(1)

after detailed examination of all the details filed had passed the assessment order and therefore, it is not a case of lack of enquiry or no enquiry, but it is a case of detailed enquiry. Merely, because the AO in the instant case has not passed the order ... reported in 189 taxmann 436, he submitted that Hon’ble High Court in said decision has held that there is a distinction between lack of enquiry and inadequate enquiry. If there was any enquiry, even inadequate, that would not by itself give occasion to the Ld.PCIT to pass order

M/S. Croda India Company Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. The Pr. Comm of Income Tax, Mumbai-6

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1439/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Dec 2022AY 2017-18
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263Section 32Section 32(1)Section 32(1)(ii)Section 35Section 43(6)

order passed by the ld. AO is erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the revenue on the ground that there is lack of enquiry by the ld. AO with regard to the issue of depreciation on Goodwill and passed the revision order u/s 263 of the Act by directing ... made enquiries on the impugned issue thrice during the course of assessment proceedings. Hence the version of the ld. PCIT that there is lack of enquiry by the ld. AO is patently wrong and incorrect. On this ground also, the revision order passed by the ld. PCIT

Tata Steel Limited, Mumbai vs. The Principle Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai

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

ITA 1316/MUM/2022[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Dec 2022AY 2012-2013
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 263Section 36(1)(iii)

said issue and deduction was granted to the assessee accordingly. Accordingly, it was submitted that this cannot be a case of lack of enquiry by the ld. AO and hence, it was pleaded that the revision proceedings initiated by the ld. PCIT on the ground that ... these submissions were also made by the assessee before the ld. PCIT. Infact, we find the ld. PCIT had changed his stand from „lack of enquiry‟ by the ld. AO to „inadequate enquiry‟ while passing the revision order u/s. 263. In the show-cause notice, the ld. PCIT states that

Tata Steel Limited, Mumbai vs. The Principle Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai-2, Mumbai

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

ITA 1315/MUM/2022[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Dec 2022AY 2011-2012
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 263Section 36(1)(iii)

said issue and deduction was granted to the assessee accordingly. Accordingly, it was submitted that this cannot be a case of lack of enquiry by the ld. AO and hence, it was pleaded that the revision proceedings initiated by the ld. PCIT on the ground that ... these submissions were also made by the assessee before the ld. PCIT. Infact, we find the ld. PCIT had changed his stand from „lack of enquiry‟ by the ld. AO to „inadequate enquiry‟ while passing the revision order u/s. 263. In the show-cause notice, the ld. PCIT states that

P.C. Chandra Holding Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. PCIT-2, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 256/KOL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata21 Dec 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice- & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2017-18 P.C. Chandra Holding Pvt. Ltd. Pr. Cit-2, Kolkata P-37A, Nani Gopal Roychowdhury Vs. Avenue, Anada Palit Road, Kolkata- 700014. Pan: Aadcp 0094 M (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Appellant By : Shri Ravi Tulsiyan, Fca Respondent By : Shri G. Hukugha Sema, Cit Date Of Hearing : 14.12.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 21.12.2022 O R D E R Per Girish Agrawal: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Arising Out Of The Order Of Pr. Cit, Kolkata-2 Vide Order No. Itba/Rev/F/Rev5/2021-22/104144167(1) Dated 24.03.2022 Passed U/S 263 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) For A.Y. 2017-18. 2. Through This Appeal, The Assessee Has Essentially Challenged The Assumption Of Jurisdiction By The Learned Principal Commissioner Of Income-Tax For Invoking The Impugned Revisionary Proceedings U/S 263 Of The Act & Passing The Order Thereunder For Which, The Assessee Has Taken As Many As Eight Grounds Of Appeal Which Are Not Reproduced For The Sake Of Brevity. The Two Issues Which Have Been Considered By The Ld. Pr. Cit For The Purpose Of Invoking The Revisionary Proceedings & Referred In The Grounds Of Appeal Are (I) Deduction U/S 80G Of The Act Amounting To Rs. 20,000/- For Which No Evidence In Support Of Payment Of Donation Is Produced To Ascertain Its Veracity (Ii) Deduction U/S 80G

For Appellant: Shri Ravi Tulsiyan, FCAFor Respondent: Shri G. Hukugha Sema, CIT
Section 10Section 143(3)Section 263Section 37Section 80GSection 80G(5)(vi)

assessee. 5 P.C. Chandra Holding Pvt. Ltd. A.Y. 2017-18 4.4. Ld. Counsel further stated that present case is not a case of lack of enquiry by the ld. AO in the assessment proceedings since specific query was raised by the ld. AO in the questionnaire issued along with notice ... matter to the assessing officer to decide whether the findings recorded are erroneous. In cases where there is inadequate enquiry but not lack of enquiry, again the CIT must give and record a finding that the order/enquiry made is erroneous. This can happen if an enquiry and verification is conducted

Kantharajapura Ramaiah Ananthababu, Mysuru vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Bengaluru-3, Bengaluru

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 491/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore19 Dec 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Narendra Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri K. Sankar Ganesh, Jt.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143Section 263

that the AO should have conducted further enquiries. However the PCIT has not brought anything on record to shown adverse effect of the lack of enquiry or any material to show that there been an error in the order that is prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. The views

M/S. C & E Ltd., Kolkata vs. Principal CIT - 4, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 636/KOL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 Dec 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

Section 143(2)Section 263Section 263(1)Section 80I

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA BENCH ‘C’, KOLKATA [Before Dr. Manish Borad, Accountant Member & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Judicial

Dheeraj Babulal Shah, Mumbai vs. Pr. CIT -17, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 886/MUM/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Dec 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Bledheeraj Babulal Shah V. Pr.Cit – Mumbai – 17 C/O. D.C. Bothra & Co.Llp (Ca) Room No. 120, 1St Floor {Formerly Known As D.C. Bothra & Co.} Kautilya Bhavan, C-41 To C-43 297, Tardeo Road, Wille Mansion G-Block, Bandra Kurla Complex Bandra(E), Mumbai - 400051 1St Floor, Opp. Bank Of India Nana Chowk, Mumbai - 400007 Pan: Arwps1458D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented By : Shri Rajkumar Singh Department Represented By : Shri S.H. Usmani

Section 1Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 263

this suspected scrip. However, Assessing Officer has not made any enquiry to that extent we may agree with the Ld. Pr.CIT there is lack of enquiry on the part of the Assessing Officer. At the same time, we observe that the value involved is very meagre. 12. Further, we observe

V.Natarajan, Rasipuram vs. ACIT Central Circle, Salem

The appeals stand allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 468/CHNY/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Nov 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.467/Chny/2021 (िनधा1रण वष1 / Assessment Year: 2015-16) & आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.468/Chny/2021 (िनधा1रण वष1 / Assessment Year: 2016-17) Shri V.Natarajan Acit बनाम/ 64C, Rotary Nagar, Central Circle, Vs. Rasipuram -637 408. Salem. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Acgpn-1477-Q (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : ( !थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri T.S. Lakshmi Venkataraman (Ca)-Ld. Ar !थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri M. Rajan, (Cit)-Ld. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/ : 15-11-2022 Date Of Hearing घोषणाकीतारीख / : 30-11-2022 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal ():

For Appellant: Shri T.S. Lakshmi Venkataraman (CA)-Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri M. Rajan, (CIT)-Ld. DR
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 263

because each of the aspect was not mentioned in the assessment order, the assessment order could not be branded as a case of lack of enquiry. Another aspect to be noted that in the assessment order, Ld. AO has made certain additions on account of cash receipts by the assessee

V.Natarajan, Rasipuram vs. ACIT Central Circle, Salem

The appeals stand allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 467/CHNY/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Nov 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.467/Chny/2021 (िनधा1रण वष1 / Assessment Year: 2015-16) & आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.468/Chny/2021 (िनधा1रण वष1 / Assessment Year: 2016-17) Shri V.Natarajan Acit बनाम/ 64C, Rotary Nagar, Central Circle, Vs. Rasipuram -637 408. Salem. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Acgpn-1477-Q (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : ( !थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri T.S. Lakshmi Venkataraman (Ca)-Ld. Ar !थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri M. Rajan, (Cit)-Ld. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/ : 15-11-2022 Date Of Hearing घोषणाकीतारीख / : 30-11-2022 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal ():

For Appellant: Shri T.S. Lakshmi Venkataraman (CA)-Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri M. Rajan, (CIT)-Ld. DR
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 263

because each of the aspect was not mentioned in the assessment order, the assessment order could not be branded as a case of lack of enquiry. Another aspect to be noted that in the assessment order, Ld. AO has made certain additions on account of cash receipts by the assessee

Siemens Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 7(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4355/MUM/2010[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Nov 2022AY 2004-05
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 245CSection 245D(1)Section 245D(3)Section 245D(4)Section 263

stand with the assessee after due M/s. Siemens Ltd., application of his mind. Hence, this cannot fall under the category of lack of enquiry by the Ld.AO. It could be safely construed that the Ld.AO had indeed taken the only possible view on the matter and Ld.CIT in the instant ... directed by the ITSC, had allowed this provision for liquidated damage as a deduction. Hence, it does not fall under the ambit of “lack of enquiry” warranting revision under section 263 of the Act. 12. Further, in respect of the aforesaid 3 issues, the following observations should also be relevant

Aadi Industries Limited, Mumbai vs. Principle CIT -14, Mumbai

In the result, we set aside the order of the CIT dated

ITA 1675/MUM/2022[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Nov 2022AY 2010-2011

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blem/S. Aadi Industries Limited V. Pr.Cit – 14 421, 4Th Floor Room No. 426, 4Th Floor Kailash Plaza, Vallabh Baug Lane Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Mumbai - 400020 Near R-Odeon Mall, Ghatkopar(E) Mumbai - 400075 Pan: Aaacj8256G (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented By : Shri Mandar Vaidya Department Represented By : Shri Jagadish Jangid

Section 143(3)Section 263

provisions under section 263 cannot be invoked. In our opinion, in the instant case, this is neither the case of inadequate enquiry nor lack of enquiry at the regular assessment stage. 14 M/s. Aadi Industries Limited 28. Taking into consideration the entire gamut of facts and judicial decisions, placed before

M/S. Embassy Property Developments Private Limited, Bangalore vs. The Principal Commissioner of Income-Tax, (Central), Bangalore

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

ITA 445/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 Nov 2022AY 2017-18
For Appellant: Shri Sriram Seshadri, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, CIT-DR
Section 147Section 17Section 2(22)(e)Section 263Section 37

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BENGALURU “C” BENCH, BENGALURU Before Shri N.V. Vasudevan, Vice President and Ms. Padmavathy S