Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 6 of 6 (1.00 seconds)
Virandra Kumar Gupta, New Delhi vs Cit, International Texation, New Delhi on 11 October, 2019 cites

Income Tax Officer vs Dg Housing Projects Ltd on 1 March, 2012

Thus, it is sine quo non that for treating the order passed by the Assessing Officer to be erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of Revenue, the order passed by the Assessing Officer is without making inquiries or verification or is not in accordance with order/instruction passed by the CBDT or Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court or Hon'ble Supreme Court. It is also quite settled law that the ld. CIT while exercising his revisionary jurisdiction u/s. 263 and reaching to a conclusion that inquiries or verifications has not been done by the Assessing Officer, then it is incumbent upon the CIT himself to undertake minimal inquiry so as to come to a conclusion that inquiry by Assessing Officer is not correct or the I.T.A. No.2055/DEL/2019 11 assessment order passed was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue. This legal position has been explained by the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of ITO vs. DG Housing Projects Ltd., (2012) 343 ITR 329 (Delhi) and DIT vs. Jyoti Foundation, 357 ITR 388 (Del.).
Delhi High Court Cites 9 - Cited by 312 - S Khanna - Full Document

Dit vs Jyoti Foundation on 9 July, 2013

Thus, it is sine quo non that for treating the order passed by the Assessing Officer to be erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of Revenue, the order passed by the Assessing Officer is without making inquiries or verification or is not in accordance with order/instruction passed by the CBDT or Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court or Hon'ble Supreme Court. It is also quite settled law that the ld. CIT while exercising his revisionary jurisdiction u/s. 263 and reaching to a conclusion that inquiries or verifications has not been done by the Assessing Officer, then it is incumbent upon the CIT himself to undertake minimal inquiry so as to come to a conclusion that inquiry by Assessing Officer is not correct or the I.T.A. No.2055/DEL/2019 11 assessment order passed was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue. This legal position has been explained by the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of ITO vs. DG Housing Projects Ltd., (2012) 343 ITR 329 (Delhi) and DIT vs. Jyoti Foundation, 357 ITR 388 (Del.).
Delhi High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 94 - S Khanna - Full Document
1