MAHARASHTRA AIRPORT DEVELOPMENT,MUMBAI vs. PR CIT 3, MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 3741/MUM/2016Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 July 2018AY 2011-1276 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the assessment was framed after examination and verification of facts, and the Principal Commissioner failed to substantiate the claim of lack of inquiry. The revisional order was set aside as the assessment was not framed hastily or without considering necessary details.

What were the facts?

The assessee company, a wholly-owned undertaking of the Govt. of Maharashtra, claimed deductions under Section 80IAB. The Principal Commissioner invoked revisional jurisdiction under Section 263, alleging the assessment order was erroneous and prejudicial to revenue due to lack of inquiry.

What were the issues?

Whether the revisional jurisdiction under Section 263 was rightly invoked by the Principal Commissioner due to alleged lack of inquiry by the Assessing Officer.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 263,Section 80IAB,Section 154

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(30)Show 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.

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI BENCHES, ‘B’ MUMBAI

Before: Shri Joginder Singh, & Shri Rajesh Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Salil Kapoor &, Shri Sumit Lalchandani, Shri Debashis Chande CIT-
Hearing: 18/07/2018

आदेश क� ��त�ल�प अ�े�षत/Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथ� / The Appellant (Respective assessee) 2. ��यथ� / The Respondent. 3. आयकर आयु�त(अपील) / The CIT, Mumbai. 4. आयकर आयु�त / CIT(A)- , Mumbai,

More judgments on Section 263

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →