107 Taxman 205 (Mum) (MAG) Indian Hotels Co. Ltd. v. DCIT

74 TTJ 67Income Tax Appellate Tribunal2002#9876 most cited

What is 107 Taxman 205 (Mum) (MAG) Indian Hotels Co. Ltd. v. DCIT authority for?

Explanation 2 to Section 263 of the Income Tax Act does not grant the Commissioner unfettered power to revise every order. It does not override the preconditions stipulated in Section 263(1).

11

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,315 Indian tax judgments — from 2018 to 2026.

Also referred to as

Indian Hotels Co. Ltd. v. DCIT · 107 Taxman 205 · section 263 · explanation 2 to section 263 · commissioner revision power · revision order · precondition section 263(1) · unfettered power

Sections most often in play

Section 10(37)Section 143(3)Section 145A(b)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 263Section 56(2)(viii)

Issues it is cited on

section 141section 282a(1)section 194lasection 145a(b)section 145bsection 45(5)section 57(iv)section 56(2)(viii)section 10(37)doctrine of mergerenhanced compensationsection 197

Judgments citing 107 Taxman 205 (Mum) (MAG) Indian Hotels Co. Ltd. v. DCIT

Sh. Randhir Singh, Sirsa vs. PCIT Rohtak, Rohtak

In the result, all the above appeals filed by the respective assessee’s are dismissed

ITA 494/CHANDI/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh24 Feb 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)Section 263

…) Anil Shah vs. Asst. CIT ii) 13 SOT 184 (Del) Leisure Wear Exports Ltd. vs. ITO iii) 81 ITD 36 (Hyd) Srinivasa Hatcheries Pvt. Ltd. vs. DCIT iv) 107 Taxman 205 (Mum) (MAG) Indian Hotels Co. Ltd. vs. DCIT v) 263 ITR 437 (P&H) Hari Iron Trading Co. vs. CIT vi) 74 TTJ 67 (All) Sahara India Mutual Benefit Co. Ltd. vs. Asst. CIT vii) 53 TTJ 432 (Ind) Vidisha Tractors vs. Asst. CIT viii) 34 SOT 241 (Mum) Reliance Communications Infrastructure Ltd. vs. CIT ix) 236 CTR 476 (Del) CIT vs. Vikas Polymers PROPOSITION XI: THAT EXPLANATION 2 TO SECTION 263 OF THE ACT DOES NOT AUTHORISE OR GIVE UNFETTERED POWER TO COMMISSIONER…

Surjeet Singh, Sirsa vs. PCIT, Rohtak

In the result, all the above appeals filed by the respective assessee’s are dismissed

ITA 488/CHANDI/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh24 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)Section 263

…) Anil Shah vs. Asst. CIT ii) 13 SOT 184 (Del) Leisure Wear Exports Ltd. vs. ITO iii) 81 ITD 36 (Hyd) Srinivasa Hatcheries Pvt. Ltd. vs. DCIT iv) 107 Taxman 205 (Mum) (MAG) Indian Hotels Co. Ltd. vs. DCIT v) 263 ITR 437 (P&H) Hari Iron Trading Co. vs. CIT vi) 74 TTJ 67 (All) Sahara India Mutual Benefit Co. Ltd. vs. Asst. CIT vii) 53 TTJ 432 (Ind) Vidisha Tractors vs. Asst. CIT viii) 34 SOT 241 (Mum) Reliance Communications Infrastructure Ltd. vs. CIT ix) 236 CTR 476 (Del) CIT vs. Vikas Polymers PROPOSITION XI: THAT EXPLANATION 2 TO SECTION 263 OF THE ACT DOES NOT AUTHORISE OR GIVE UNFETTERED POWER TO COMMISSIONER…

Sh. Paramjeet Singh, Sirsa vs. PCIT, Rohtak

In the result, all the above appeals filed by the respective assessee’s are dismissed

ITA 290/CHANDI/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh24 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)Section 263

…) Anil Shah vs. Asst. CIT ii) 13 SOT 184 (Del) Leisure Wear Exports Ltd. vs. ITO iii) 81 ITD 36 (Hyd) Srinivasa Hatcheries Pvt. Ltd. vs. DCIT iv) 107 Taxman 205 (Mum) (MAG) Indian Hotels Co. Ltd. vs. DCIT v) 263 ITR 437 (P&H) Hari Iron Trading Co. vs. CIT vi) 74 TTJ 67 (All) Sahara India Mutual Benefit Co. Ltd. vs. Asst. CIT vii) 53 TTJ 432 (Ind) Vidisha Tractors vs. Asst. CIT viii) 34 SOT 241 (Mum) Reliance Communications Infrastructure Ltd. vs. CIT ix) 236 CTR 476 (Del) CIT vs. Vikas Polymers PROPOSITION XI: THAT EXPLANATION 2 TO SECTION 263 OF THE ACT DOES NOT AUTHORISE OR GIVE UNFETTERED POWER TO COMMISSIONER…

Dhuni Chand HUF, Sirsa vs. PCIT, Rohtak

In the result, all the above appeals filed by the respective assessee’s are dismissed

ITA 289/CHANDI/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh24 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)Section 263

…) Anil Shah vs. Asst. CIT ii) 13 SOT 184 (Del) Leisure Wear Exports Ltd. vs. ITO iii) 81 ITD 36 (Hyd) Srinivasa Hatcheries Pvt. Ltd. vs. DCIT iv) 107 Taxman 205 (Mum) (MAG) Indian Hotels Co. Ltd. vs. DCIT v) 263 ITR 437 (P&H) Hari Iron Trading Co. vs. CIT vi) 74 TTJ 67 (All) Sahara India Mutual Benefit Co. Ltd. vs. Asst. CIT vii) 53 TTJ 432 (Ind) Vidisha Tractors vs. Asst. CIT viii) 34 SOT 241 (Mum) Reliance Communications Infrastructure Ltd. vs. CIT ix) 236 CTR 476 (Del) CIT vs. Vikas Polymers PROPOSITION XI: THAT EXPLANATION 2 TO SECTION 263 OF THE ACT DOES NOT AUTHORISE OR GIVE UNFETTERED POWER TO COMMISSIONER…

Sh. Kashmir Singh Sandha, Sirsa vs. PCIT, Rohtak

In the result, all the above appeals filed by the respective assessee’s are dismissed

ITA 288/CHANDI/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh24 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)Section 263

…) Anil Shah vs. Asst. CIT ii) 13 SOT 184 (Del) Leisure Wear Exports Ltd. vs. ITO iii) 81 ITD 36 (Hyd) Srinivasa Hatcheries Pvt. Ltd. vs. DCIT iv) 107 Taxman 205 (Mum) (MAG) Indian Hotels Co. Ltd. vs. DCIT v) 263 ITR 437 (P&H) Hari Iron Trading Co. vs. CIT vi) 74 TTJ 67 (All) Sahara India Mutual Benefit Co. Ltd. vs. Asst. CIT vii) 53 TTJ 432 (Ind) Vidisha Tractors vs. Asst. CIT viii) 34 SOT 241 (Mum) Reliance Communications Infrastructure Ltd. vs. CIT ix) 236 CTR 476 (Del) CIT vs. Vikas Polymers PROPOSITION XI: THAT EXPLANATION 2 TO SECTION 263 OF THE ACT DOES NOT AUTHORISE OR GIVE UNFETTERED POWER TO COMMISSIONER…

M/S Ganesh Dass HUF, Sirsa vs. PCIT, Rohtak

In the result, all the above appeals filed by the respective assessee’s are dismissed

ITA 287/CHANDI/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh24 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)Section 263

…) Anil Shah vs. Asst. CIT ii) 13 SOT 184 (Del) Leisure Wear Exports Ltd. vs. ITO iii) 81 ITD 36 (Hyd) Srinivasa Hatcheries Pvt. Ltd. vs. DCIT iv) 107 Taxman 205 (Mum) (MAG) Indian Hotels Co. Ltd. vs. DCIT v) 263 ITR 437 (P&H) Hari Iron Trading Co. vs. CIT vi) 74 TTJ 67 (All) Sahara India Mutual Benefit Co. Ltd. vs. Asst. CIT vii) 53 TTJ 432 (Ind) Vidisha Tractors vs. Asst. CIT viii) 34 SOT 241 (Mum) Reliance Communications Infrastructure Ltd. vs. CIT ix) 236 CTR 476 (Del) CIT vs. Vikas Polymers PROPOSITION XI: THAT EXPLANATION 2 TO SECTION 263 OF THE ACT DOES NOT AUTHORISE OR GIVE UNFETTERED POWER TO COMMISSIONER…

Sh. Arvail Singh, Sirsa vs. PCIT, Rohtak

In the result, all the above appeals filed by the respective assessee’s are dismissed

ITA 286/CHANDI/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh24 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)Section 263

…) Anil Shah vs. Asst. CIT ii) 13 SOT 184 (Del) Leisure Wear Exports Ltd. vs. ITO iii) 81 ITD 36 (Hyd) Srinivasa Hatcheries Pvt. Ltd. vs. DCIT iv) 107 Taxman 205 (Mum) (MAG) Indian Hotels Co. Ltd. vs. DCIT v) 263 ITR 437 (P&H) Hari Iron Trading Co. vs. CIT vi) 74 TTJ 67 (All) Sahara India Mutual Benefit Co. Ltd. vs. Asst. CIT vii) 53 TTJ 432 (Ind) Vidisha Tractors vs. Asst. CIT viii) 34 SOT 241 (Mum) Reliance Communications Infrastructure Ltd. vs. CIT ix) 236 CTR 476 (Del) CIT vs. Vikas Polymers PROPOSITION XI: THAT EXPLANATION 2 TO SECTION 263 OF THE ACT DOES NOT AUTHORISE OR GIVE UNFETTERED POWER TO COMMISSIONER…

Sandeep Hooda, New Delhi vs. Pr.CIT - 7, New Delhi

The appeal is allowed and the impugned order dated 30

ITA 397/DEL/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Aug 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Shri Anubhav Sharmasandeep Hooda, Vs. Pr. Cit-7, C/O. Rra Taxindia, D-28, South New Delhi Extension, Part-I, New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aacph5453J

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Shri H. K. Choudhary, CIT DR
Section 143Section 143(3)Section 263Section 27Section 48Section 50Section 500(1)Section 50CSection 50C(2)Section 50c(2)

…INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “G”: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI ANIL CHATURVEDI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER Sandeep Hooda, Vs. Pr. CIT-7, C/o. RRA Taxindia, D-28, South New Delhi Extension, Part-I, New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) PAN: AACPH5453J Assessee by : Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Adv Shri Somil Agarwal, Adv Shri Deepesh Garg, Adv Revenue by: Shri H. K. Choudhary, CIT DR Date of Hearing: 26/07/2022 10th /08/2022 Date of pronouncement: O R D E R PER ANUBHAV SHARMA, J. M.: 1. The present appeal has been preferred by the Assessee challenging the order dated 30.03.2021 of Ld Pr.…

Jindal Steel & Power Ltd., Hisar vs. CIT, Hisar

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1462/DEL/2016[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Nov 2021AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Salil Kapoor, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. S. Najmi, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 263Section 263(2)Section 80

…rges with the order of CIT(Appeals) and no other aspect of that issue can be subjected to revision under section 263 of the Act: Oil India Ltd. v. CIT, Calcutta: 138 ITR 836 Smt. Sujatha Grower v. DICT: 74 TTJ 347 Sahara India Mutual Benefit Co. Ltd v. ACIT: 74 TTJ 67 Saw Pipes Limited v. ACIT: 94 TTJ 1036 Sonal Garments v. JCIT: 95 ITD 363 Maricolndustries Ltd. v. ACIT: 115 TTJ 497 In view of the aforesaid, the assessment order qua the issues/ claim, which was subject matter of appeal before the CIT(A) and ITAT (deduction under sections 80IA and 80IB of the Act), merged with the order of the CIT(A). Consequen…

Nuwave Esolutions Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. CIT, New Delhi

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3231/DEL/2013[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Dec 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri G. D. Agrawal & Ms Suchitra Kamblenuwave Esolutions Pvt. Ltd. Vs Cit(A) 3Rd Floor, District Centre, Delhi-V Dda Building, Nehru Place New Delhi New Delhi Aabcn5790Q (Respondent) (Appellant)

Section 10Section 10ASection 143(3)Section 148Section 263Section 40Section 92

…iv. Sadhu Ram & Sons Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax & Anr. (2007) 108 TTJ (Asr) 373. v. Sonal Garments vs Jt. CIT 95 ITD 363(Mum) (2005) vi. Saw Pipes Ltd vs Add. CIT 94 TTJ 1036(Del) vii. Hoogly Mills vs ACIT 71 ITD 264 (Cal) viii. Sahara India Mutual vs CIT 74 TTJ 67 (All) ix. Sahara vs CIT 90 TTJ 878(A11) x. Sheena Industries vs CIT (Del)(Trib) The Ld AR further submitted that the case of CIT is that Assessing Officer ought to have done more detailed enquiry which cannot be the basis for revision as held in case of CIT vs. Hindustan Marketing & Advt. Co. 341 ITR 180(Del). The Ld. AR submitted that once assess…

M/S.Oberon Edifices & Estates P. Ltd, Kochi vs. The Pr.CIT, Trivandrum

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 361/COCH/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin23 Jul 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm I.T.A. No. 361/Coch/2017 Assessment Year : 2013-14 M/S. Oberon Edifices & Estates Vs. The Principal Commissioner Of Pvt. Ltd., Oberon Mall, Income-Tax, Trivandrum. Nh Bye-Pass, Edapally, Kochi-682 024. [Pan:Aaaco 7942E]

Section 263

…ioner with the power of suo motu revision because the first requirement, viz., that the order is erroneous, is absent.” 4.5 The Ld. AR relied on the decision of the ITAT, Allahabad ‘B’ Bench in the case of Sahara India Mutual Benefit Co. Ltd. vs. ACIT (2002) 74 TTJ 67 (All.) for the same proposition. The Ld. AR relied on the decision of the High Court of Gujarat in the case of Smt. Minalben S. Parikh (1995) 79 Taxman 184 wherein it was held as under: “What is meant by words 'prejudicial to the interest of the revenue' has not been defined. However, giving ordinary meaning to the words used in the statute, they…

107 Taxman 205 (Mum) (MAG) Indian Hotels Co. Ltd. v. DCIT (74 TTJ 67) — Cited in 11 Judgments | BharatTax