UBS BUSINESS SOLUTIONS (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED (SUCCESSOR TO CREDIT SUISSE SERVICES (INDIA) PVT LTD),PUNE vs. PCIT, PUNE - 1, PUNE, MAHARASHTRA
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that the assessment order was not erroneous or prejudicial to the revenue because the assessee's entire expenditure, including repairs and maintenance, was recovered from associated enterprises with a markup. Therefore, the twin conditions for invoking Section 263 were not met.
What were the facts?
The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (PCIT) initiated proceedings under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, to revise an assessment order. The PCIT believed the Assessing Officer (AO) had not adequately verified repairs and maintenance expenditure and that certain computer peripherals should have been capitalized.
What were the issues?
Whether the PCIT's revision order under Section 263 was justified when the assessee recovered all expenses with a markup from associated enterprises, and whether the AO's verification of repairs and maintenance expenses was sufficient.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cases cited in this judgment(6)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
- CIT v. Gabriel India Ltd.990 citing203 ITR 108 · 1993 · HC
- Kedarnath Jute Mfg. Co. Ltd. v. CIT654 citing82 ITR 363 · 1971 · SC · Read judgment
- ITO v. DG Housing Projects Ltd.78 citing212 Taxmann 132 · 2012 · HC · Read judgment
- (i) CIT v. Excel Industry Ltd.37 citing91 Taxmann 351 · 1997 · SC
- Chamber of Tax Consultants & Anr. v. UOI10 citing87 Taxmann.com 92 · 2017 · HC
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, PUNE BENCHES “B” :: PUNE
Before: MS.ASTHA CHANDRA & DR.DIPAK P. RIPOTE
PER DR. DIPAK P. RIPOTE, AM: This appeal is filed by the Assessee against the order of ld.Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Pune-1 passed under section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for A.Y.2020-21, dated 31.03.2025 emanating from Assessment Order u/s.143(3) r.w.s 144B
ITA No.1224/PUN/2025 [A]
of the Income Tax Act, 1961 dated 06.09.2022. The Assessee has raised following grounds of appeal : “General Ground Grounds of
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 →- U Days Garments vs. The Adjudication OfficerMadras · 16 Oct 2026
- M/S Jsw Cement Limited,Jajpur vs. State Of OdishaOrissa · 16 Oct 2026
- M/S.Sreeshobi Enterprises vs. The Appellate AuthorityMadras · 16 Oct 2026
- S.T.Promotors vs. The Commercial Tax OfficerMadras · 16 Oct 2026
- Prashanti Das (M/S. Panchamukhi Enterprises) vs. Assistant Commissioner Of State Tax, CT And GST, Jagatsinghpur CircleOrissa · 16 Oct 2026