ACC LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, 3(4), MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2722/MUM/2024Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 November 2025AY 2013-14Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai (Judicial Member), Shri Omkareshwar Chidara ( (Accountant Member)1 pages

In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the revision order passed by the PCIT under Section 263 was invalid. This was because the issue had already been addressed in the assessment order, and no error or prejudice to the revenue was found.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal arose from an addition made by the AO regarding interest under Section 234D, which was confirmed by the CIT(A). This addition was a consequence of a revision order passed by the PCIT under Section 263.

What were the issues?

Whether an addition made pursuant to a Section 263 revision order is valid when the issue was already considered in the original assessment order and the revision order itself was found to be invalid.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 234D,Section 115JB,Section 263,Section 147,Section 148,Section 143(3)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai “A” Bench, Mumbai.

Before: Smt. Beena Pillai (JM) & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara (AM)

For Appellant: Shri Surendra Mohan
Pronounced: 25/11/2025

Per Omkareshwar Chidara (AM) :- The only issue to be adjudicated in this appeal is whether the addition made by Ld. AO with respect to levy of interest under section 234D of the Income Tax Act provided for withdrawal of excess of refund while computing book profit under section 115JB of the Act when such amount was already disallowed while computing the book profit in original assessment order. The addition was made by Ld. AO in the present appeal, in consequence of Revision Order passed by Ld. PCIT under section 263 of the Act. The Ld. CIT(A) has confirmed the addition by holding that the word “Income Tax” was defined in inclusive manner and the Income Tax will include “the interest charged under the Act”. The Ld. CIT(A) held that the Ld. AO has correctly added interest under section 234D to determine the correct Book Profit because the income tax calculated under the normal provisions remains higher than the provisions of computation under section 115JB of the Act.

2.

Aggrieved by the addition, appellant company has filed this appeal before ITAT where Ld. AR of the appellant has submitted that the issue in question emanated from the order of Revision Order passed by Ld. PCIT and 2 ACC Ltd. the order of Revision itself was quashed by ITAT and a copy of ITAT order was submitted before the Bench.

3.

The Ld. DR relied on the orders of lower authorities.

4.

Heard both sides. This order of ITAT in is perused and found that the ITAT has already taken a decision that the order under section 263 of the Act is not correct because the Ld. AO has already added the same amount in the assessment order and the appellant is in appeal before Ld. CIT(A). As there is no “error” and no prejudice was caused to the interest of Revenue, the ITAT held that the order under section 263 passed by Ld. PCIT is not valid. Hence, the Bench decides that the assessment order passed making addition now in consequence of Revision Order of Ld. PCIT is held as invalid.

5.

The appeal of the appellant company is allowed.

The appeal of appellant is allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced in the open Court on 25/11/2025.

More judgments on Section 234D

All 2,105 judgments and leading authorities on Section 234D →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →