ARVIND ADVANCED MATERIALS LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOWN AS ARVIND TRUE BLUE LIMITED),AHMEDABAD vs. THE PCIT, AHMEDABAD-1, AHMEDABAD
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that the PCIT validly invoked Section 263 jurisdiction as the AO's inquiry was not adequate. The assessment order was deemed erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue due to the failure to properly examine the commission expenditure and TDS liability.
What were the facts?
The PCIT invoked Section 263 powers to revise an assessment order, citing the assessee's failure to deduct TDS on commission expenses and the Assessing Officer's lack of adequate inquiry. The assessee argued that the amount was discount, not commission, and that the AO had already inquired into the matter.
What were the issues?
Whether the PCIT validly exercised revisionary powers under Section 263 due to inadequate inquiry by the AO regarding TDS on commission expenses. Whether the expenditure was commission or discount.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
Section 263,Section 143(3),Section 144(B),Section 40(a)(ia),Section 41(1)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, AHMEDABAD BENCHES, AHMEDABAD
Before: SHRI NARENDRA PRASAD SINHA & SHRI SANJAY KUMAR
PER SANJAY KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER:
- This appeal has been filed by the Assessee against the order dated 25.03.2025 passed by the Ld. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Ahmedabad-1 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Ld. PCIT’ in short), under Section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’ in short) for Assessment Year 2021-22. 2. The Assessee has raised following grounds of Appe
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 →- Sh Umang Uniyal vs. Commissioner Department Of Central Goods And Services TaxUttarakhand · 16 Oct 2026
- Paresh Textiles Prop Paresh Gudhka vs. Superintendent Range Iv Div VBombay · 15 Oct 2026
- M/S Palladium Constructions PVT LTD. vs. Principal Commissioner Of Central TaxKarnataka · 15 Oct 2026
- M/S. Vk Construction vs. The Deputy State Tax Officer - IiMadras · 15 Oct 2026
- Tvl. Sri Bhuvaneshwari And Co vs. The Deputy Commissioner (St)Madras · 15 Oct 2026