JT COMM. OF INCOME TAX (OSD) CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. M/S GRASIM INDUSTRIES LIMITED (SUCCESSOR TO ADITYA BIRLA NUVO LID), MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1295/MUM/2022Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 November 2022AY 2013-145 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that since the revision order under Section 263 was quashed, the subsequent assessment order also failed to survive. Therefore, the CIT(A)'s decision to allow the assessee's claim was upheld.

What were the facts?

The assessee claimed long-term capital loss (LTCL) which was disallowed by the Principal Commissioner (PCIT) under Section 263. The PCIT's order was subsequently quashed by a co-ordinate bench of the ITAT. The CIT(A) followed this decision and allowed the assessee's claim.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) was correct in allowing the assessee's claim for LTCL after the revision order under Section 263 was quashed by a co-ordinate bench.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 263,Section 143(3)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “G” BENCH, MUMBAI

Before: SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT, AM & MS. KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL, JM

For Appellant: Shri Kailash Kanojia
For Respondent: Shri Kailash Kanojia
Hearing: 22.08.2022Pronounced: 17.11.2022

per the decision of the co-ordinate bench, quashing the order passed u/s. 263 and the subsequent assessment order u/s.143(3) r.w.s. 263 fails to have a legal sanctity. We thereby uphold the order of the ld. CIT(A).

10.

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed.

Order pronounced in the open court on 17.11.2022.

1.

Sd/- Sd/- (Om Prakash Kant) (Kavitha Rajagopal) Accountant Member Judicial Member Mumbai; Dated : 17.11.2022 Roshani, Sr. PS Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. The Appellant 2. The Respondent 3. The CIT(A) 4. CIT - concerned 5. DR, ITAT, Mumbai 6. Guard File BY ORDER,

More judgments on Section 263

All 13,616 judgments and leading authorities on Section 263 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →