259 ITR 502 CIT v. Arvind Jewellery

266 ITR 101Reported decision#17452 most cited
5

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 341,001 Indian tax judgments — from 2022 to 2025.

Issues it is cited on

revision under section 263erroneous and prejudicialrevenue expendituresection 263section 26section 143companysection 14section 143(3)indiatotal incomeinterest

Judgments citing 259 ITR 502 CIT v. Arvind Jewellery

Slr Infrastructure Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. DCIT., Circle-3(1), Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 544/HYD/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad17 Oct 2025AY 2018-19
Section 142(1)Section 143Section 143(3)Section 194CSection 263

…interest of revenue. It held that where two views are possible order cannot be termed as erroneous. The powers under section 263 cannot be exercised merely because a different view is possible SC dismissed the SLP against 259 ITR 502 CIT Vs. Arvind Jewellery (266 ITR 101) St. In the case of CIT vs. Bharat Aluminum Co. Ltd. (303 ITR 256), the Hon'ble High 'Court of Delhi has held that for revision under section 263, the Commissioner of Income-tax has to be satisfied of two conditions viz. (i) the order of the AO sought to be revised is erroneous and (ii) It is prejudicial to the interest of Revenue. If one of the…

M/S. Anabond Ltd., Chennai vs. PCIT, Chennai-1

In the result, all the grounds appeal raised by the assesse are allowed

ITA 1625/CHNY/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai27 Nov 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1625/Chny/2024 निर्धारण वर्ा /Assessment Years: 2018-19 M/S. Anabond Limited The Principal Commissioner Of Type-Ii, 36, Dr. V.S.I. Estate Income Tax-1 Tiruvanmiyur, Chennai Chennai-600041. [Pan: Aacca4158Q] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) : Shri B.Ramakrishnan, F.C.A. अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Assessee By : Shri Nilay Baran Som, Cit प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Revenue By सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 02.09.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 27.11.2024

For Appellant: Shri Nilay Baran Som, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 35Section 5Section 80I

…and the said material was considered by the ITO and a particular view was taken, the mere fact that different view could be taken, should not be the basis for an action under section 263 and it could not be held to be justified.”. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in 266 ITR 101 has dismissed the SLP filed by the Revenue against the Order passed by the Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Arvind Jewellers 259 ITR 502 supra. 4.6 The issue of lack of enquiry Vs inadequate enquiry has also been a matter of great debate qua decisions concerning orders u/s 263. Hon’ble High Court of Delhi, in the case of CIT V. Sunbeam A…

M/S Shriram Properties Limited, Chennai vs. PCIT-Central1, Chennai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 431/CHNY/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai20 Mar 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha. G, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 431/Chny/2022 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri. Ananthan, CA & Ms. Lalitha. RFor Respondent: Shri. S. Senthil Kumaran, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 56(2)(vii)

…terest of revenue. It held that where two views are possible order cannot be termed as erroneous. The powers under section 263 cannot be exercised merely because a different view is possible - SC dismissed the SLP against 259 ITR 502 CIT Vs. Arvind Jewellery (266 ITR 101) St. :-54-: ITA. No: 431/Chny/2022 • In the case of CIT vs. Bharat Aluminum Co. Ltd. (303 ITR 256), the Hon'ble High 'Court of Delhi has held that for revision under section 263, the Commissioner of Income-tax has to be satisfied of two conditions viz. (i) the order of the AO sought to be revised is erroneous and (ii) It is prejudicial to the i…

M/S Good Earth Fertilizers Company P Ltd [Chemikas Speciality LLP], Chennai vs. ITO, Corporate Ward - 2[2], Chennai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 424/CHNY/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai24 Feb 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha.G, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.424/Chny/2022 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 V. M/S.Good Earth Fertilizers- The Income Tax Officer, Co. P. Ltd., Corporate Ward-2(2), (Now Known As Chemikas Chennai. Specialty Llp), No.2, North Crescent Road, T. Nagar,Chennai-600 017. [Pan:Aasfg 6012 G] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Mr.S.Sridhar, AdvFor Respondent: Mr.R.Mohan Reddy, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 263

…terest of revenue. It held that where two views are possible order cannot be termed as erroneous. The powers under section 263 cannot be exercised merely because a different view is possible - SC dismissed the SLP against 259 ITR 502 CIT Vs. Arvind Jewellery (266 ITR 101) St. • In the case of CIT vs. Bharat Aluminum Co. Ltd. (303 ITR 256), the Hon'ble High 'Court of Delhi has held that for revision under section 263, the Commissioner of Income-tax has to be satisfied of two conditions viz. (i) the order of the AO sought to be revised is erroneous and (ii) It is prejudicial to the interest of Revenue. If one of th…

Sr Trust, Madurai vs. PCIT(Central), Chennai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 213/CHNY/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai04 Nov 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon’Ble

For Respondent: Mr. AR.V.Sreenivasan
Section 12ASection 132Section 143(3)Section 144Section 263

…terest of revenue. It held that where two views are possible order cannot be termed as erroneous. The powers under section 263 cannot be exercised merely because a different view is possible - SC dismissed the SLP against 259 ITR 502 CIT Vs. Arvind Jewellery (266 ITR 101) St. • In the case of CIT vs. Bharat Aluminum Co. Ltd. (303 ITR 256), the Hon'ble High 'Court of Delhi has held that for revision under section 263, the Commissioner of Income-tax has to be satisfied of two conditions viz. (i) the order of the AO sought to be revised is erroneous and (ii) It is prejudicial to the interest of Revenue. If one of th…

259 ITR 502 CIT v. Arvind Jewellery (266 ITR 101) — Cited in 5 Judgments | BharatTax