DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. SPAN OVERSEAS LTD., PUNE
In favour of the assessee: the Revenue's appeal was dismissed. From the AI summary of this appeal.
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, stating that since the CIT's order under Section 263 was set aside, the subsequent assessment order passed under Section 143(3) r.w.s. 263 had no merit. Therefore, the additions made were rightly deleted.
What were the facts?
The Revenue appealed against the CIT(A)'s order deleting additions made by the Assessing Officer. The original assessment was set aside by the CIT under Section 263, but the Tribunal later held that the CIT's exercise of jurisdiction under Section 263 was incorrect.
What were the issues?
Whether the additions made by the Assessing Officer were valid when the basis for the revised assessment (CIT's order under Section 263) was subsequently quashed by the Tribunal.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, PUNE BENCH “A”, PUNE
आदेश / ORDER PER SUSHMA CHOWLA, JM:
The appeal filed by the Revenue is against the order of CIT(A)-4, Pune, dated 21.01.2016 relating to assessment year 2008-09 against order passed under section 143(3) r.w.s. 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’).
The Revenue has raised the following grounds of appeal:- 1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld CIT(A) is correct in deleting following additions made by the AO. i). Disallowance of expenditure relating to exempt income u/s 14A of Rs.11,81,094/- ii) Disallowance of commission of Rs.88,21,770/-
2 ITA No.720/PUN/2016 Span Overseas Ltd.
iii) On account of incentives paid to employees / inflated expenditure of Rs.42,00,500/- iv) Compensation not in the nature of expenses deductible u/s 37(1) of Rs.27,50,000/- v) Travelling expenses found to be non genuine of Rs.33,91,004/- 2. For this and such other reasons as may be urged at the time of hearing, the order of the CIT(A) may be vacated and that of the Assessing Officer be restored.
The present appeal is filed by the Revenue against the order of CIT(A) in deleting various additions made by the Assessing Officer.
Shri Achal Sharma appeared on behalf of Revenue and Shri Anand Kankariya appeared on behalf of assessee and put forward their rival contentions.
We have heard the rival contentions and perused the record. Briefly, in the facts of the case, original assessment was made by the Assessing Officer under section 143(3) of the Act vide order dated 30.12.2010. Thereafter, the Commissioner of Income Tax invoked the jurisdiction under section 263 of the Act and passed order setting aside the assessment order passed by Assessing Officer. The assessee filed an appeal against invoking of jurisdiction by the Commissioner under section 263 of the Act before the Tribunal. The appeal of assessee was decided vide ITA No.1223/PN/2013, relating to assessment year 2008-09, order dated 21.12.2015. The Tribunal held that exercise of jurisdiction by the Commissioner under section 263 of the Act was not correct and hence, the order was set aside. Meanwhile, the Assessing Officer passed order under section 143(3) r.w.s. 263 of the Act.
3 ITA No.720/PUN/2016 Span Overseas Ltd.
The CIT(A) noted that since the Tribunal had set aside the order passed under section 263 of the Act, then there is no merit in the impugned assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer under section 143(3) r.w.s. 263 of the Act. Hence, the Assessing Officer was directed to delete the additions made on various counts in the said order passed under section 143(3) r.w.s. 263 of the Act.
The Revenue is in appeal against the order of CIT(A) in this regard.
We find no merit in the grounds of appeal raised by the Revenue since the present appeal arises from an assessment order passed under section 143(3) r.w.s. 263 of the Act. However, the order passed by the Commissioner under section 263 of the Act has been set aside by the Tribunal and hence, we uphold the order of CIT(A) in directing the Assessing Officer to delete disallowance made on various counts in his order passed under section 143(3) r.w.s. 263 of the Act. The grounds of appeal raised by the Revenue are thus, dismissed.
In the result, the appeal of Revenue is dismissed.
Order pronounced on this 12th day of April, 2018.
Sd/- Sd/- (ANIL CHATURVEDI) (SUSHMA CHOWLA) ऱेखा सदस्य / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER न्याययक सदस्य / JUDICIAL MEMBER ऩुणे / Pune; ददनाांक Dated : 12th April, 2018. GCVSR
4 ITA No.720/PUN/2016 Span Overseas Ltd.
आदेश की प्रयतलऱपप अग्रेपषत/Copy of the Order is forwarded to : 1. अऩीऱाथी / The Appellant; 2. प्रत्यथी / The Respondent; 3. आयकर आयुक्त(अऩीऱ) / The CIT(A)-4, Pune; The Pr.CIT-3, Pune; 4. ववभागीय प्रतततनधध, आयकर अऩीऱीय अधधकरण, ऩुणे “ए” / DR 5. ‘A’, ITAT, Pune; गार्ड पाईऱ / Guard file. 6. आदेशािुसार/ BY ORDER, सत्यावऩत प्रतत //True Copy// वररष्ठ तनजी सधिव / Sr. Private Secretary आयकर अऩीऱीय अधधकरण ,ऩुणे / ITAT, Pune
More judgments on Section 14A
- Blacksoil Capital Private Limited (As… vs DCIT, Circle-1(1), HyderabadITA 2217/HYD/2026[2017-18]Status: Disposed9 Oct 2026AY 2017-18
- Hiral Construction, Mumbai vs ITO Ward 42(1)(2), MumbaiITA 8431/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: Disposed8 Oct 2026AY 2017-18
- The Dy DIT (It) 1(2), Mumbai vs M/S Citi Bank N.A, MumbaiITA 4981/MUM/2007[2002-2003]Status: Disposed8 Oct 2026AY 2002-2003
- M/S. Citi Bank N.A., Mumbai vs The Addl DIT (It) RG-1, MumbaiITA 4970/MUM/2007[2002-2003]Status: Disposed8 Oct 2026AY 2002-2003
- M/S American Express Bank Ltd., Mumbai vs The Jt DIT (It)1(1), MumbaiITA 9414/MUM/2004[2000-2001]Status: Disposed8 Oct 2026AY 2000-2001
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Imtiyaz Shaikh Z Chorlekar vs. Salman ShaikhBombay · 21 Oct 2026
- Dr Babasaheb Ambedkar Marathwada University Thr Its Registrar Prashant S Amrutkar vs. Union Of INDIA Thr The Secretary And OthersBombay · 19 Oct 2026
- Babasaheb Ambedkar Marathwada University Thr Registrar Prashant S Amrutkar vs. Union Of INDIA Thr Secretary And OthersBombay · 19 Oct 2026
- Vinishma Technologies Private Limited vs. State Of KarnatakaKarnataka · 17 Oct 2026
- Vinishma Technologies Private Limited vs. State Of KarnatakaKarnataka · 17 Oct 2026