UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. PCIT-3, CHENNAI
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that the PCIT's revision order was not justified as the assessee had consistently claimed and been allowed similar deductions in prior years. The corrigendum was quashed as it was issued beyond the statutory limitation period and introduced a new issue not addressed in the original revision order.
What were the facts?
The assessee claimed profit on sale of investments as exempt under section 10(38). The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (PCIT) invoked revisionary powers under section 263, holding the assessment order erroneous and prejudicial to revenue. The PCIT also issued a corrigendum to his revision order beyond the prescribed time limit.
What were the issues?
Whether the PCIT was justified in revising the assessment order under section 263 when similar deductions were allowed in prior years, and whether a corrigendum issued beyond the limitation period is valid.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cases cited in this judgment(5)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.
- CIT v. Escorts Ltd.60 citing338 ITR 435 · 2011 · HC
- Cholamandalam MS General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. DCIT22 citing174 Taxmann.com 603 · 2025 · HC
- PCIT v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd.6 citing254 Taxmann 238 · HC
- 14 ITR 2494 citing14 ITR 249
- GIC v. CIT4 citing240 ITR 739
Before: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Jagadish
PER S.S. VISWANETHRA RAVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER:
The appeal in ITA No. 1759/Chny/2019 filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 29.03.2019 passed by the ld. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-3, Chennai for the assessment year 201
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 10(38)
- Shalin Jayantbhai Desai, Vadodara vs ACIT, Circle-4(2), Vadodara Present…ITA 2569/AHD/2026[2010-11]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2010-11
- Hetal Vinodchandra Sheth, Ahmedabad vs The ITO, Ward-5(3)(1), AhmedabadITA 2370/AHD/2025[2014-15]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2014-15
- Hetal Vinodchandra Sheth, Ahmedabad vs The ITO, Ward-5(3)(1), AhmedabadITA 2369/AHD/2025[2014-15]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2014-15
- Karan Dilipkumar Patel L/H of Late… vs Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Vapi…ITA 353/SRT/2024[2011-12]Status: Disposed14 Oct 2026AY 2011-12
- Jay Patel, Raipur vs ITO, Ward-3(1), RaipurITA 684/RPR/2026[2015-16]Status: Heard12 Oct 2026AY 2015-16
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Giri Paints vs. The Assistant Commissioner (St)Madras · 15 Oct 2026
- Rahul Radheshyam Chauhan vs. Union Of INDIA Thru The Sec. Ministry Of Law And Justice And OrsBombay · 15 Oct 2026
- S.Murugesan vs. The Deputy Commercial Tax OfficerMadras · 15 Oct 2026
- Tvl. Annai Garden vs. The Commercial Tax Officer / The State Tax OfficerMadras · 15 Oct 2026
- Yadeshwar Mallekedi vs. The State Of TelanganaTelangana · 15 Oct 2026