C.B. MUBARKA CHARITABLE TRUST,MUMBAI vs. CIT (EXEMPTION), MUMBAI
In favour of the Revenue: the assessee's appeal was dismissed. From the AI summary of this appeal.
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that the AO had passed the assessment order without basic verification of the excess expenditure claimed from the corpus fund, which was not allowable. Therefore, the Pr.CIT rightly directed the AO to re-do the assessment.
What were the facts?
The assessee trust filed a return declaring nil income. The Assessing Officer (AO) completed the assessment under Section 143(3). Subsequently, the Principal Commissioner (Pr.CIT) initiated proceedings under Section 263, observing that the AO's order was erroneous and prejudicial to revenue due to non-verification of significant expenditure incurred from the corpus fund.
What were the issues?
Whether the Assessing Officer's assessment order was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue due to lack of verification of expenditure from the corpus fund. Whether the Pr.CIT was justified in invoking Section 263 powers.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cases cited in this judgment(7)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.
- Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. v. CIT2,943 citing243 ITR 83 · 2000 · SC · Read judgment
- Rampyari Devi Saraogi v. CIT616 citing88 ITR 323 · 1968 · SC
- CIT v. Amitabh Bachchan264 citing384 ITR 200 · 2016 · SC · Read judgment
- Madras in Venkatakrishna Rice Co. v. CIT95 citing163 ITR 129 · 1987 · HC
- Indian Textile vs CIT (157 ITR 112) (Mad.), Gee Vee Enterprises v. Addl. CIT (75 citing101 ITR 1 · 1975 · HC
- Nabha Investments Pvt. ltd. v. UOI65 citing248 ITR 292 · 2001 · HC
- PCIT v. Delhi Airport Metro Express (P) Ltd.63 citing398 ITR 8 · 2017 · HC · Read judgment
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “C” BENCH, MUMBAI
Before: SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY & SHRI AMARJIT SINGH
आदेश की प्रतितिति अग्रेतिि/Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथी / The Appellant 2. प्रत्यथी / The Respondent. 3. संबंधधत आयकर आयुक्त / The CIT(A) 4. आयकर आयुक्त(अपील) / Concerned CIT धिभागीय प्रधतधनधध, आयकर अपीलीय अधधकरण, अहमदाबाद / DR, ITAT, Mumbai 5. 6. गार्ड फाईल / Guard file.
आदेशानुसार/BY ORDER, सत्याधपत प्रधत //True Copy//
(Asst. Registrar) ITAT, Mumbai
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 →- M/S Rentex Polymers Private Limited vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Central Goods And Services TaxDelhi · 29 Oct 2026
- M/S Maa Shila Traders vs. The State Of BiharPatna · 29 Oct 2026
- M/S Ashish Enterprises vs. Assistant Commissioner Gsto Ward No. 86Delhi · 29 Oct 2026
- M/S. Bhanwal Trading And Company vs. The Union Of INDIARajasthan · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S. Saraswati Enterprises vs. State Of RajasthanRajasthan · 28 Oct 2026