M/S VODAFONE EAST LTD.,KOLKATA vs. CIT, KOLKATA -3, KOLKATA, KOLKATA
In favour of the Revenue: the assessee's appeal was dismissed. From the AI summary of this appeal.
What did the Tribunal hold?
The assessee requested to withdraw the current appeal as they were no longer interested in pressing the issue of the CIT's jurisdiction under section 263. The Tribunal acceded to this request.
What were the facts?
The assessee filed an appeal against an order passed by the CIT under section 263, which had set aside the AO's assessment order. The AO subsequently made a fresh assessment, and the assessee has filed a separate appeal against this new assessment.
What were the issues?
The primary issue was the jurisdiction of the CIT to pass an order under section 263. The assessee chose not to pursue this issue.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, KOLKATA BENCH ‘A’, KOLKATA
Before: Shri P.M. Jagtap, AM & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi, JM]
order
: March 13, 2018 ORDER
Per P.M. Jagtap, AM
This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of Ld. CIT – 3, Kolkata dated 18.03.2015 passed under section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
At the time of hearing, the learned counsel for the assessee has submitted that the Ld. CIT vide his impugned order passed under section 263 had set aside the order passed by the A.O. under section 143(3) with the direction to him to make the assessment afresh after fresh application of mind. He has submitted that the Assessing Officer has already completed the fresh assessment in pursuance of the direction given by the Ld. CIT in his impugned order under section 263 and the assessee has filed an appeal against the same before the Ld. CIT(A) disputing the addition made by the A.O. in the quantum proceedings.
He has submitted that the assessee in the present appeal has mainly raised the issue challenging the jurisdiction of the Ld. CIT in passing the impugned order under section 263 and since the assessee now is not interested in pressing the said issue, this appeal may be allowed to be withdrawn. Since the learned DR has not raised any objection in this regard, the request of the assessee for withdrawing this appeal is acceded to and this appeal is dismissed as withdrawn.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed. Order Pronounced in the Open Court on 13th March, 2018.
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 →- The State Of Bihar Through The Commissioner Of State Tax vs. Kaushlendra KumarPatna · 27 Oct 2026
- Ayush Sureshchandra Shah vs. State Of GujaratGujarat · 27 Oct 2026
- Sureshchandra Moolchand Shah vs. State Of GujaratGujarat · 27 Oct 2026
- M/S Larsen And Toubro Limited vs. Joint Commissioner Of Central GST And Anr.Delhi · 27 Oct 2026
- T C Global INDIA Private Limited vs. Principal Commissioner Of Central GST, North DelhiDelhi · 27 Oct 2026