BharatTax.net
SearchITATHigh CourtsSupreme CourtPhrasesAI ResearchHistory

Filters

BharatTax.net

Free search engine for ITAT (Income Tax Appellate Tribunal) judgments across all 28 benches in India.

Quick Links

  • Search Judgments
  • Browse by Bench
  • Recent Judgments

About

BharatTax provides free access to Income Tax Appellate Tribunal orders for legal research and reference.

© 2026 BharatTax.net. All rights reserved.

110 results for “capital gains”+ Section 263clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai1,208Delhi953Bangalore564Kolkata385Chennai343Ahmedabad301Jaipur269Karnataka208Hyderabad171Indore165Pune165Chandigarh153Raipur110Surat79Cochin75Visakhapatnam70Calcutta67Rajkot65Nagpur54Panaji45Lucknow36Cuttack30Guwahati25Amritsar24Jabalpur23Agra17Jodhpur15Dehradun13Telangana12SC10Patna9Varanasi8Ranchi6Kerala3Allahabad2Rajasthan2Punjab & Haryana1Andhra Pradesh1

Key Topics

Section 143(3)90Section 26385Addition to Income49Deduction47Disallowance33Depreciation26Section 14725Section 14822Section 80P(2)(a)22Section 80P(2)

JAI GURUDEV INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD,BILASPUR vs. PR. CIT, BILASPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 65/RPR/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur14 Oct 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri N. K. Choudhryआयकर आयकर अपील आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं./I.T.A. No. 65/Rpr/2020 अपील िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Year : 2015-16) (िनधा"रण िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" Jai Gurudev Infrastructure Pvt Ltd, Principal Commissioner Of बनाम/ बनाम बनाम बनाम C-11, Netaji Complex, Jarhabhata, Income-Tax, Vs. Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh Bilaspur "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaccj 1895 R .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) Shri Sunil Kumar Agrawal, Ca अपीलाथ" ओर से /Appellant By : Shri P.K. Mishra, Cit-Dr ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : 29.07.2021 सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing 14.10.2021 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement आदेश/O R D E R Per Pradip Kumar Kedia - Am:

For Appellant: Shri P.K. Mishra, CIT-DRFor Respondent: 29.07.2021
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 43CSection 44A

Showing 1–20 of 110 · Page 1 of 6

18
Revision u/s 26318
Section 10(37)17

gains from transfer of land parcels in question. The income was accordingly assessed at Rs.22,14,670/-. 4. Subsequent to the assessment order so passed, the PCIT, in exercise of revisional powers conferred under Section 263 of the Act, called for the assessment records and observed that such order is erroneous insofar as prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX-2(1)BHILAI, BHILAI(CG) vs. M/S SMS SHIVNATH INFRASSTRUCTURE PVT LTD., DURG, DURG(CG)

In the result, appeal of the revenue in ITA No

ITA 87/BIL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur27 Mar 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अऩीऱ सं./Ita No.87/Rpr/2017 (ननधाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2012-2013) Acit-2(1), Bhilai Vs M/S Sms Shivnath Infrastructure Pvt Ltd.,Toll Plaza, Near Dhamdhanaka, Durg. Pan No. :Aadcs 2258 Q (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. & आयकर अऩीऱ सं./Ita No.107/Rpr/2016 (ननधाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2012-2013) M/S Sms Shivnath Infrastructure Vs Pr.Cit-2, Raipur Pvt Ltd.,Toll Plaza, Near Dhamdhanaka, Durg. Pan No. :Aadcs 2258 Q (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) ..

For Appellant: Shri Kapil Hirani, Adv. & MukeshFor Respondent: Shri Debashis Lahiri, CIT-DR
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 250(4)Section 36Section 80ISection 80l

capital gains and income from other sources. Apart from the said incomes, the Assessee also had Income under the head business and profession amounting to Rs. 23,88,87,498 which was fully claimed as deduction U/s 80lA of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ("Act"). Tax was paid U/s 115JB of the Act. 3. The Assessee had during the immediately

M/S SMS SHIVNATH INFRASTRUCTURE PVT LTD,DURG(CG) vs. THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-2, RAIPUR (CG)

In the result, appeal of the revenue in ITA No

ITA 107/BIL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur27 Mar 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अऩीऱ सं./Ita No.87/Rpr/2017 (ननधाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2012-2013) Acit-2(1), Bhilai Vs M/S Sms Shivnath Infrastructure Pvt Ltd.,Toll Plaza, Near Dhamdhanaka, Durg. Pan No. :Aadcs 2258 Q (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. & आयकर अऩीऱ सं./Ita No.107/Rpr/2016 (ननधाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2012-2013) M/S Sms Shivnath Infrastructure Vs Pr.Cit-2, Raipur Pvt Ltd.,Toll Plaza, Near Dhamdhanaka, Durg. Pan No. :Aadcs 2258 Q (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) ..

For Appellant: Shri Kapil Hirani, Adv. & MukeshFor Respondent: Shri Debashis Lahiri, CIT-DR
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 250(4)Section 36Section 80ISection 80l

capital gains and income from other sources. Apart from the said incomes, the Assessee also had Income under the head business and profession amounting to Rs. 23,88,87,498 which was fully claimed as deduction U/s 80lA of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ("Act"). Tax was paid U/s 115JB of the Act. 3. The Assessee had during the immediately

DCIT,1(1), RAIPUR (CG) vs. SMT VIMLESH KUMAR SINGH, RAIPUR (CG)

In the result, appeal filed by Revenue is dismissed

ITA 21/BIL/2013[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur15 Jan 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: : Shri N.S.Saini & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Judical Member Dcit-1(1), Raipur Vs Late Shri Vijay Pal Singh, Through L/H Smt. Vimlesh Kumari Singh, Prop.M/S Manohar Engineering & M/S Sharda Engineering, Baikunth, District – Raipur Pan No. : Ahjps 0124 K (Appellant) .. Tsednepser Revenue By : Mrs. Shital Verma, Dr Assessee By : Shri K.P.Dewani, Ar Date Of Hearing : 10/01/2018 Date Of Pronouncement 15/01/2018 आदेश / O R D E R Per Shri N.S.Saini, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Of The Cit(A), Raipur, Dated 08.02.2013 For The Assessment Year 2006-2007. 2. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds :- “1. Whether In Law & On Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, The Cit(A) Has Erred In Deleting The Addition Of Rs.1,98,28,636/- Made By The Ao By Treating Long Term Capital Gain As Income From Undisclosed Sources.” 3. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Ao Observed That The Shares On Sale Of Which Ltcg Of Rs.1.95,39,611/- Was Shown & Exemption U/S.10(38) Of The Act Was Claimed Were Held Barely For Little More Than One Year To Qualify The Same As Long Term Capital Asset. The Cost Of The Shares Was Rs.2,69,400/- & Sale Consideration Was Rs.1,98,28,636/-. He

For Appellant: Shri K.P.Dewani, ARFor Respondent: Mrs. Shital Verma, DR
Section 10(38)

section 10(38) of the Act. We find that assessee has purchased the shares through off market deal and therefore such transaction for purchase of shares by the assessee ought not to have been registered with the Calcutta Stock Exchange. Secondly, the Voucher for shares sold to the assessee issued by M/s Badri Prasad & Sons, broker of the Calcutta Stock

SHRI RAMDEV MANDHANI, HUF,RAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER - 3(2), RAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 19/RPR/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur21 Oct 2021AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri N. K. Choudhryआयकर आयकर अपील आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं./I.T.A. No. 19/Rpr/2021 अपील िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Year : 2016-17) (िनधा"रण िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" Ramdev Mandhani Huf, Income Tax Officer-3(2), बनाम/ बनाम बनाम बनाम C-295, Shailendra Nagar, Raipur Vs. Raipur, Chhattisgarh - 492001 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaghr 5208 F .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) Shri R.B. Doshi, Ar अपीलाथ" ओर से /Appellant By : Shri P.K. Mishra, Cit-Dr ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : 29.07.2021 सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing 21.10.2021 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement आदेश/O R D E R Per Pradip Kumar Kedia - Am:

For Appellant: Shri P.K. Mishra, CIT-DRFor Respondent: 29.07.2021
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 54

capital gains have been claimed correctly. The assessment was completed under Section 143(3) of the Act allowing the deductions claimed. Thereafter, the PCIT called for the assessment records and opined that the assessment order so passed is erroneous insofar as prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. A show cause notice was issued to assessee seeking his response

ANAND SURANA,RAIPUR vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RAIPUR-1, RAIPUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 192/RPR/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur04 Jul 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.192/Rpr/2022 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2016-17 Anand Surana, Nanesh Kripa, Civil Lines, Raipur (C.G.)-492 001 Pan : Aosps5275H .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Raipur-1 (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri S.R. Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri S.K Meena, CIT-DR
Section 10(37)Section 143(3)Section 2(14)Section 2(14)(iii)Section 263

capital gain (LTCG). Accordingly, the Pr. CIT held a conviction that as the A.O had failed to apply his mind to the aforesaid issue which was one of the reason for selection of his case for scrutiny assessment, therefore, the same had rendered the assessment order passed by him as erroneous in so far it was prejudicial to the interest

SURESH CHAND SURANA,RAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-4(1), RAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 25/RPR/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur06 Sept 2021AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri N. K. Choudhryआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 25/Rpr/2021) ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2016-17)

For Appellant: Shri R. K. Singh, CIT.DR
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 54ESection 54F

capital gains in the ratio of cost of new asset to the net consideration received on transfer is not chargeable to tax. The benefit was intended for investment in one residential house within India. Accordingly, it is proposed to amend the aforesaid sub-section (1) of section 54 so as to provide that the rollover relief under the said section

ARVIND SANGOI,RAIPUR vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1), RAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 33/RPR/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur29 Sept 2021AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri N.K. Choudhryassessment Year: 2016-17

For Respondent: Shri R.K. Singh, CIT D.R
Section 143(3)Section 263

capital gains chargeable under section 145 of the Act and endorsed by the A.O. to be plausible. 8.3 The revisional power exercised in the facts of the case is plainly without authority of law. Consequently, the revisional order passed under section 263

DILIP SANGOI,RAIPUR vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1), RAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 34/RPR/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur29 Sept 2021AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri N.K. Choudhryassessment Year: 2016-17

For Respondent: Shri R.K. Singh, CIT D.R
Section 143(3)Section 263

capital gains chargeable under section 145 of the Act and endorsed by the A.O. to be plausible. 8.3 The revisional power exercised in the facts of the case is plainly without authority of law. Consequently, the revisional order passed under section 263

SATYA POWER AND ISPAT LTD.,BILASPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, RAIPUR

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

ITA 51/RPR/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur29 Sept 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri N. K. Choudhryआयकर आयकर अपील आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं./I.T.A. Nos.51 & 52/Rpr/2021 अपील िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13 & 2013-14) (िनधा"रण िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" Satya Power & Ispat Ltd., Deputy Commissioner Of बनाम/ बनाम बनाम बनाम First Floor, V R Plaza, Income-Tax, Vs. Link Road, Central Circle-2, Bilaspur-495001 (Cg) Raipur "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aahcs 4472 N .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) Shri Amit Maloo Jain, Ca अपीलाथ" ओर से /Appellant By : Shri P.K. Mishra, Cit-Dr ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : 30.07.2021 सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing 29.09.2021 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement आदेश/O R D E R Per Pradip Kumar Kedia - Am:

For Appellant: Shri P.K. Mishra, CIT-DRFor Respondent: 30.07.2021
Section 10(38)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 263

Section 263 of the Act for both the assessment years. In terms of the show-cause notice, it was alleged that the Assessing Officer has failed to make inquiries and verifications that should have been made to ascertain the legitimacy of the Long Term Capital Gain

SATYA POWER AND ISPAT LTD.,BILASPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, RAIPUR

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

ITA 52/RPR/2021[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur29 Sept 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri N. K. Choudhryआयकर आयकर अपील आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं./I.T.A. Nos.51 & 52/Rpr/2021 अपील िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13 & 2013-14) (िनधा"रण िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" Satya Power & Ispat Ltd., Deputy Commissioner Of बनाम/ बनाम बनाम बनाम First Floor, V R Plaza, Income-Tax, Vs. Link Road, Central Circle-2, Bilaspur-495001 (Cg) Raipur "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aahcs 4472 N .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) Shri Amit Maloo Jain, Ca अपीलाथ" ओर से /Appellant By : Shri P.K. Mishra, Cit-Dr ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : 30.07.2021 सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing 29.09.2021 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement आदेश/O R D E R Per Pradip Kumar Kedia - Am:

For Appellant: Shri P.K. Mishra, CIT-DRFor Respondent: 30.07.2021
Section 10(38)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 263

Section 263 of the Act for both the assessment years. In terms of the show-cause notice, it was alleged that the Assessing Officer has failed to make inquiries and verifications that should have been made to ascertain the legitimacy of the Long Term Capital Gain

SANKET JHABAK, RAIPUR,RAIPUR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1, RAIPUR, RAIPUR

In the result, all the appeals filed by the captioned assessees are allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 479/RPR/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur19 Feb 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

For Appellant: Shri Nikhilesh Begani, Advocate
Section 1Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 263

Section 263 of the Act as had been looked into by the Hon’ble Courts deal with the two issues which goes to the very foundation of the present appeal, viz. (i) that as to whether or not the Pr. CIT while exercising his revisional jurisdiction u/s. 263 of the Act had rightly concluded that the subject land

SMT. SUSHILA DEVI JHABAK, RAIPUR,RAIPUR vs. PCIT-1, RAIPUR, RAIPUR

In the result, all the appeals filed by the captioned assessees are allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 235/RPR/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur19 Feb 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

For Appellant: Shri Nikhilesh Begani, Advocate
Section 1Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 263

Section 263 of the Act as had been looked into by the Hon’ble Courts deal with the two issues which goes to the very foundation of the present appeal, viz. (i) that as to whether or not the Pr. CIT while exercising his revisional jurisdiction u/s. 263 of the Act had rightly concluded that the subject land

SANJOG JHABAK, RAIPUR,RAIPUR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RAIPUR-1, RAIPUR

In the result, all the appeals filed by the captioned assessees are allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 233/RPR/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur19 Feb 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

For Appellant: Shri Nikhilesh Begani, Advocate
Section 1Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 263

Section 263 of the Act as had been looked into by the Hon’ble Courts deal with the two issues which goes to the very foundation of the present appeal, viz. (i) that as to whether or not the Pr. CIT while exercising his revisional jurisdiction u/s. 263 of the Act had rightly concluded that the subject land

SAMPAT LAL JHABAK, RAIPUR,RAIPUR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1, RAIPUR, RAIPUR

In the result, all the appeals filed by the captioned assessees are allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 478/RPR/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur19 Feb 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

For Appellant: Shri Nikhilesh Begani, Advocate
Section 1Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 263

Section 263 of the Act as had been looked into by the Hon’ble Courts deal with the two issues which goes to the very foundation of the present appeal, viz. (i) that as to whether or not the Pr. CIT while exercising his revisional jurisdiction u/s. 263 of the Act had rightly concluded that the subject land

SANJOG JHABAK L/H OF LATE GAUTAM CHAND JHABAK, RAIPUR,RAIPUR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RAIPUR-1, RAIPUR

In the result, all the appeals filed by the captioned assessees are allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 234/RPR/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur19 Feb 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

For Appellant: Shri Nikhilesh Begani, Advocate
Section 1Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 263

Section 263 of the Act as had been looked into by the Hon’ble Courts deal with the two issues which goes to the very foundation of the present appeal, viz. (i) that as to whether or not the Pr. CIT while exercising his revisional jurisdiction u/s. 263 of the Act had rightly concluded that the subject land

SMT. TILOTTAMA JHABAK, RAIPUR,RAIPUR vs. PCIT-1, RAIPUR, RAIPUR

In the result, all the appeals filed by the captioned assessees are allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 236/RPR/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur19 Feb 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

For Appellant: Shri Nikhilesh Begani, Advocate
Section 1Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 263

Section 263 of the Act as had been looked into by the Hon’ble Courts deal with the two issues which goes to the very foundation of the present appeal, viz. (i) that as to whether or not the Pr. CIT while exercising his revisional jurisdiction u/s. 263 of the Act had rightly concluded that the subject land

SMT. PUSHPA JHABAK, RAIPUR,RAIPUR vs. PCIT-1, RAIPUR, RAIPUR

In the result, all the appeals filed by the captioned assessees are allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 237/RPR/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur19 Feb 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

For Appellant: Shri Nikhilesh Begani, Advocate
Section 1Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 263

Section 263 of the Act as had been looked into by the Hon’ble Courts deal with the two issues which goes to the very foundation of the present appeal, viz. (i) that as to whether or not the Pr. CIT while exercising his revisional jurisdiction u/s. 263 of the Act had rightly concluded that the subject land

RAJESH CHAND SURANA,RAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, RAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 45/RPR/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur14 Oct 2021AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri N.K. Choudhryassessment Year: 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri R.B. Doshi, C.AFor Respondent: Shri P.K. Mishra, CIT D.R
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 54ESection 54F

capital gain arising to assessee as well as towards eligibility of deduction under section 54F was placed before the A.O. The PCIT has regarded the Assessment Order as erroneous mainly on the ground that construction work has been completed to the extent of 70% only as reported by the DIT (I&CI) in this regard. The PCIT

KAMLESH JAIN & SONS HUF,RAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-3(2), RAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 26/RPR/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur29 Sept 2021AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri N.K. Choudhryassessment Year: 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri R.B. Doshi, C.AFor Respondent: Shri P.K. Mishra, CIT D.R
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 54F

section 263 itself and is a mandatory requirement. Reliance was placed on the decisions of : - Smt. Shardaben B. Patel vs. Pr. CIT (2020), 180 ITD 328 (Ahd.) - CIT vs. Amitab Bachchan (2016) 384 ITR 200 (SC) - Venkat Naicken Trust vs. ITO (2000) 242 ITR 141 (Mad) 8. To expound the factual position, it was also pointed out that notice dated