DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 1(1), JABALPUR vs. M/S. JASHN BENEFICIARY TRUST, MUMBAI
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that once the section 263 order is quashed, the consequent assessment order is without basis in law. Therefore, the CIT(A) was justified in quashing the assessment.
What were the facts?
The Revenue appealed against the CIT(A)'s order which quashed the assessment as infructuous. The assessment was made pursuant to an order under section 263, which was later quashed by the Tribunal.
What were the issues?
Whether an assessment order made pursuant to a section 263 order survives if the section 263 order is subsequently quashed.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cases cited in this judgment(1)Show listHide list
Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.
- Mela Ram & Sons. v. CIT29 citing29 ITR 607 · 1956 · SC
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, JABALPUR BENCH, JABALPUR
Before: SHRI N.R.S. GANESAN & SHRI SANJAY ARORA
Per Sanjay Arora, AM: This is an Appeal by the Revenue directed against the Order dated 15/02/2018 by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-1, Jabalpur (‘CIT(A)’ for short), allowing the assessee’s appeal contesting its’ assessment under section 143(3) r/w s. 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’ hereinafter) dated 21/10/2016 for assessment year (AY) 2011-12. 2. The Revenue’s appeal raises a single ground, i.e., whether the ld. CIT(A) was justified in quashing the assessment as infructuous. The assessment having been made pursuant to an order u/s. 263,
The order continues below.
Read the full judgment
A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.
The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.
More judgments on Section 263
- Gillette India Limited, Mumbai vs Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, JaipurITA 1316/JPR/2026[2018-19]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Neo Structo Construction P. Ltd., Ahmedabad vs The Pr. CIT- 3, AhmedabadITA 1216/AHD/2026[2015-2016]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2015-2016
- Vimal Harilal Baldania, Gandhidham vs The ITO Ward 2, GandhidhamITA 770/RJT/2025[2017-18]Status: Disposed15 Oct 2026AY 2017-18
- J.D. Marketing, Kolkata vs ITO, Ward 37(1), KolkataITA 1493/KOL/2026[2015-2016]Status: Disposed15 Oct 2026AY 2015-2016
- J.D. Marketing, Kolkata vs ITO, Ward 37(1), KolkataITA 1492/KOL/2026[2013-2014]Status: Disposed15 Oct 2026AY 2013-2014
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Jharkhand Contractors Association Thro Its President- Pramod Kumar vs. Bharat Coking Coal LTD. Thro Its Chairman Cum Managing DirectorJharkhand · 13 Oct 2026
- M/S Isc Processors Private Limited vs. Superintendent,Range-Iv, Burrabazar Div, CGST And Cx, Kolkata (N) Commissionerate And AnrCalcutta · 13 Oct 2026
- M/S Raashi Constructions vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of Commercial TaxesKarnataka · 13 Oct 2026
- M/S Bidasaria Fenster Solutions vs. The State Of BiharPatna · 13 Oct 2026
- Amit Agency vs. Commissioner, CGST And CxPatna · 13 Oct 2026