MADANLAL LODHA, RAIPUR,RAIPUR vs. DCIT-1(1), RAIPUR, RAIPUR
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that since a previous order under Section 263 of the Act for the same assessment year had been quashed by the Tribunal, the subsequent assessment order based on it does not survive and is therefore quashed.
What were the facts?
The assessee's returned income was Rs. 99,93,230/-, but the AO determined the total income at Rs. 1,71,69,132/-. This assessment order was passed under Section 143(3) read with Sections 263 and 144B of the Income Tax Act.
What were the issues?
The primary issue was whether the assessment order passed pursuant to a Section 263 order, which was subsequently quashed, was valid.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, RAIPUR BENCH “DB”, RAIPUR
Before: JUSTICE (RETD.) C.V. BHADANG & SHRI R.K PANDA
PER JUSTICE (RETD.) C.V. BHADANG, PRESIDENT:
This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 05.02.2026 of the Ld.CIT(Appeals)/NFAC, Delhi relating to assessment year 2017-18. 2. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee at the very outset submitted that the A.O passed the assessment order u/s.143(3) r.w.s. 263 r.w.s 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Act’) determining total income of the assessee at Rs.1,71,69,132/- as
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