How many judgments cite Ashoka Buildcon Ltd. v. ACIT?

25 judgments on BharatTax cite Ashoka Buildcon Ltd. v. ACIT (325 ITR 574), spanning 2016 to 2025.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does Ashoka Buildcon Ltd. v. ACIT come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 115JB, Section 143(2), Section 143(3), Section 144B, Section 144C, Section 147.

Ashoka Buildcon Ltd. v. ACIT

325 ITR 574High Court2010#4740 most cited

What is Ashoka Buildcon Ltd. v. ACIT authority for?

The limitation period for revising an assessment order under section 263 begins from the date of the original assessment order, even if reassessment proceedings were initiated on different grounds.

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,315 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2025.

Also referred to as

Ashoka Buildcon Ltd. · ACIT · 325 ITR 574 · section 263 · section 147 · section 143(3) · revision limitation · original assessment order · reassessment · period of limitation

Sections most often in play

Section 115JB Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144B Section 144C Section 147 Section 14A Section 151

Issues it is cited on

section 263(2)section 72a section 147(b)doctrine of merger section 72 section 147(a)section 148(2)section 34(1)revision under section 263 section 22 section 34 income escaping assessment

Judgments citing Ashoka Buildcon Ltd. v. ACIT

Hsbc Securities and Capital Markets (India) Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Principal Commissioner of Income-Tax, Mumbai-4, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee stands allowed

ITA 2586/MUM/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Feb 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2014-15

For Appellant: Ms. Krupa Gandhi, Ld. A.RFor Respondent: Shri Biswanath Das, Ld. D.R

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 147Section 14ASection 154Section 263

…m subject-matter of reassessment, limitation u/s 263(2) of the Act shall run from order u/s 143(3) of the Act. 2.3.6 Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the cases of Lark Chemicals Ltd. (368 ITR 655) (Refer pg. no. 56 to 59 of LPB) and Ashoka Buildcon Ltd. (325 ITR 574) affirmed on the same principle. Most respectfully, the issues for which Your Honour has issued the captioned notice relate to the Original Order. Hence, following the above-quoted settled legal position, the time limit of two years u/s 263(2) applies to the Original Order which time limit has expired. Therefore, the revision proceedings are tim…

Shiv Vegpro Private Limited, Kota vs. PCIT-Udaipur, Udaipur

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

ITA 1014/JPR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur28 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Mahendra Gargieya, (Adv.) &For Respondent: Mrs. Alka Gautam, (CIT-DR)

Section 147Section 263Section 36(1)(iii)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…of reassessment order. The Delhi High Court held that the subject matter is different since the Commissioner has found error in regular assessment order, hence limitation shall commence for regular assessment order.” 3.3 In Ashok Buildcon Ltd. Vs. ACIT (2010) 325 ITR 574 (Bom.) (DC), held that: "Section 263, read with section 147, of the Income-tax Act, 1961 Revision - Of orders prejudicial to interest of revenue - Assessment year 2004-05 - Whether where an assessment has been reopened under section 147 in relation to a particular ground or in relation to certain specified grounds and subsequent to passing of ord…

The Nimar Educational Society, Khandwa vs. The CIT (Exemption), Bhopal

Appeal is partly allowed

ITA 343/IND/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Indore20 Sept 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year: 2017-18 The Nimar Educational Cit(Exemption) , Society, Bhopal बनाम/ Harsud Road, Civil Lines, East Nimar, Vs. Khandwa (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Pan: Aabtt1409K Assessee By Shri S.N. Agrawal & Shri Pankaj Mogra, Ars Revenue By Shri Ram Kumar Yadav, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 20.08.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 20.09.2024

Section 10Section 11Section 12ASection 139Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 68

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, इंदौर "ायपीठ, इंदौर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL INDORE BENCH, INDORE BEFORE SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI B.M. BIYANI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year: 2017-18 The Nimar Educational CIT(Exemption) , Society, Bhopal बनाम/ Harsud Road, Civil Lines, East Nimar, Vs. Khandwa (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) PAN: AABTT1409K Assessee by Shri S.N. Agrawal and Shri Pankaj Mogra, ARs Revenue by Shri Ram Kumar Yadav, CIT DR Date of Hearing 20.08.2024 Date of Pronouncement 20.09.2024 आदेश / O R D E R Per B.M. Biyani, A.M.: Feeling aggrieved by revision-order dated 13.…

Bonjour Estates (P) Limited, New Delhi vs. Pr.CIT-1, New Delhi

In the result appeal of the assessee partly allowed

ITA 732/DEL/2021[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Apr 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri B.R.R. Kumarassessment Year: 2010-11 M/S. Bonjour Estates (P) Ltd., The Pcit (1), C-444, Defence Colony, New New Delhi 110002 Delhi 110024 Vs. Pan Aaecn 4851 H (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : Shri Neeraj Mangla, Ca For Revenue : Shri P. Praveen Sidharth, Cit Dr

For Appellant: Shri Neeraj Mangla, CAFor Respondent: Shri P. Praveen Sidharth, CIT DR

Section 139Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 263

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: A: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA MOHAN GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI B.R.R. KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year: 2010-11 M/s. Bonjour Estates (P) Ltd., The PCIT (1), C-444, Defence Colony, New New Delhi 110002 Delhi 110024 vs. PAN AAECN 4851 H (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : Shri Neeraj Mangla, CA For Revenue : Shri P. Praveen Sidharth, CIT DR Date of Hearing : 15.02.2023 Date of Pronouncement : 11.04.2023 ORDER PER CHANDRA MOHAN GARG, J.M. This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 28.03.2021 of the Ld. PCIT(1), New Del…

Ajmer Development Authority, Ajmer vs. CIT(Exemption)/ ITO (Exemption), Jaipur / Jodhpur

In the result, the stay application filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 89/JODH/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur22 Mar 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Kul Bharatshri Manish Borad

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 263

…of reassessment order. The Delhi High Court held that the subject matter is different since the Commissioner has found error in regular assessment order, hence limitation shall commence for regular assessment order." 6.3 In Ashok Buildcon Ltd. Vs. ACIT (2010) 325 ITR 574 (Born.) (DPB 5-11), held that: "Section 263, read with section 147, of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Revision - Of orders prejudicial to interest of revenue - Assessment year 2004-05 - Whether where an assessment has been reopened under section 147 in relation to a particular ground or in relation to certain specified grounds and subsequent to passi…

Manohar Manak Alloys P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT 4(2), Mumbai

Appeal is allowed

ITA 1159/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Dec 2022AY 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Rajkumar SinghFor Respondent: Shri A.B. Koli

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 263Section 263(1)

…rf Club (supra) wherein the Tribunal had relied upon the judgment of the Hon‘ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Alagendran Finance Ltd: (2007) 293 ITR 1 (SC), and the judgment of the Hon‘ble Bombay High Court in the case of Ashoka Buildcon Ltd. vs. CIT: 325 ITR 574 (Bom). 17. The Hon‘ble Supreme Court has, in the case of CIT vs. Alagendran Finance Ltd (supra) has held that the period of limitation specified under Section 263(2) of the Act would start running from the date of the original assessment order. In that case assessment was completed under Section 143(3) of the Act on 30.03.1998. Subsequently, rea…

Shapoorji Pallonji and Company Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Principle Commissioner of Income Tax (Central), -4, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1149/MUM/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Sept 2022AY 2012-13

Section 115JSection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 14ASection 263Section 92C

…g the impugned judgment. The appeal, therefore, being devoid of any merit is dismissed with costs. Counsel's fee assessed at Rs. 25,000. 3.8. Moreover, we further find that the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Ashoka Buildcon Ltd., reported in 325 ITR 574 had also held as under: 10. The submission which has been urged on behalf of the revenue is that when several issues are dealt with in the original order of assessment and only one or more of them are dealt with in the order of reassessment passed after the assessment has been reopened, the remaining issues must be deemed to have been dealt with…

Sivakumaran Pugazhendhi, Chennai vs. PCIT, Chennai-4

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 27/CHNY/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Sept 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.27/Chny/2022 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2014-15 Sivakumaran Pugazhendhi, The Principal Commissioner 70 Raja Agraharam Street, Vs. Of Income Tax, Poonamalle, Chennai-4. Chennai – 600 056. [Pan: Aiapp-7309-R] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Ms. T.V. Muthu Abirami, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent By : Shri M. Rajan, Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 05.09.2022 : 21.09.2022 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R

For Appellant: Ms. T.V. Muthu Abirami, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri M. Rajan, CIT

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 263

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ‘सी’ "यायपीठ, चे"ई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘C’ BENCH: CHENNAI "ी महावीर "सह, उपा"य" एवं "ी मनोज कुमार अ"वाल, लेखा सद"य के सम" BEFORE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, VICE PRESIDENTAND SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.27/Chny/2022 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2014-15 Sivakumaran Pugazhendhi, The Principal Commissioner 70 Raja Agraharam Street, Vs. of Income Tax, Poonamalle, Chennai-4. Chennai – 600 056. [PAN: AIAPP-7309-R] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant by : Ms. T.V. Muthu Abirami, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent by : S…

Hindustan Construction Company, Mumbai vs. Pr. CIT-6, Mumbai

Appeal is allowed

ITA 969/MUM/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Aug 2022AY 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri H. P. MahajaniFor Respondent: Shri Mehul Jain

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 147Section 263Section 263(2)

…not subject matter of reassessment proceedings. In identical facts and circumstances, the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Alagendran Finance Ltd: (2007) 293 ITR 1 (SC) and the Hon‟ble Bombay High Court in the case of Ashoka Buildcon Ltd. vs. CIT: 325 ITR 574 (Bombay) have set aside the revisional order passed under Section 263 of the Act holding the same to be barred by limitation prescribed in terms of Section 263(2) of the Act. 8. Responding to the above submission, the Ld. Departmental Representative submitted that the PCIT has revised the order dated 24.12.2018 passed under Section 143(3) read w…

M/S. Ravi Foundation, Mumbai vs. Pr. CIT-17, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is hereby allowed

ITA 884/MUM/2021[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Apr 2022AY 2010-11

For Appellant: Ms. Arati AggarwalFor Respondent: Shri T. Shankar (Sr. AR)

Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 263Section 263(2)

…PCIT is barred by limitation as provided under section 263(2) of the Act. In support of such contention, learned counsel relied upon the following decisions: - 1. CIT Vs. Alagendran Finance Ltd., [2007] 293 ITR 1 (SC) 2. Ashoka Buildcon Ltd. Vs. ACIT, [2010] 325 ITR 574 (Bom.) 3. CIT Vs. ICICI Bank Ltd., [2012] 343 ITR 74 (Bom.) 4. Indira Industries Vs. PCIT, [2018] 95 TAXMANN.COM 103 (Mad.) 5. CIT Vs. Lark Chemicals Ltd, [2014] 368 ITR 655 (Bom.) 6. CIT Vs. Bharti Airtel Ltd., [2013] 37 taxmann.com 218 (Del.) 7. CIT Vs. Shriram Engg. Construction Co. Ltd., [201 1] 330 ITR 568 (Mad.) 8. L.G.Electronics Indi…

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

…nary order passed on issue of non- deduction of tax at source on free airtime and roaming charges was held to be barred by limitation since limitation had to be seen from the original assessment order. Hon’ble Bombay High Court in Ashoka Buildcon Ltd V. ACIT: 325 ITR 574 (Bom) Pg. 38-44 of CLC has also taken the same view. That similar issue was also considered in the case of CIT V. 12 ITA No.1462.Del.2016 Jindal Steel & Power Limited ShriramEngg. Construction Co. Ltd: 330 ITR 568 (Mad). (Pg. 45-49 CLC) It is important to mention a recent decision of Indira Industries vs. PCIT, Madras High Court ([2018] 95 ta…

Royal Western India Turf Club, Mumbai vs. Pr. CIT -8, Mumbai

In the result, appeal is allowed, as indicated above

ITA 640/MUM/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Oct 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey () & Shri Rajesh Kumar ()

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 147Section 263Section 263(2)

…mitation as provided under section 263(2) of the Act. In support of such contention, learned counsel relied upon the following decisions:- S.No. Particulars 1. CIT Vs. Alagendran Finance Ltd., [2007] 293 ITR 1 (SC) 2. Ashoka Buildcon Ltd. Vs. ACIT, [2010] 325 ITR 574 (Bom.) 3. CIT Vs. ICICI Bank Ltd., [2012] 343 ITR 74 (Bom.) 4. Indira Industries Vs. PCIT, [2018] 95 TAXMANN.COM 103 (Mad.) 5. CIT Vs. Lark Chemicals Ltd, [2014] 368 ITR 655 (Bom.) 6. CIT Vs. Bharti Airtel Ltd., [2013] 37 taxmann.com 218 (Del.) 7. CIT Vs. Shriram Engg. Construction Co. Ltd., [201 1] 330 ITR 568 (Mad.) 8. L.G.Electronics Ind…

The Tata Power Company Ltd, Mumbai vs. Pr CIT 2, Mumbai

In the result, appeal is allowed, as indicated above

ITA 1307/MUM/2020[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jul 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey () & Shri Rajesh Kumar ()

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 144C(1)Section 147Section 263Section 80I

…he period of limitation for revising the original assessment order has already expired. In support of such contention, he relied upon the following decisions:- 1. CIT vs Alagendran Finance Ltd 293 ITR 1 (SC) 5 ITA 1307/Mum/2020 2. Àsoka Buildcon Ltd vs ACIT 325 ITR 574 (Bom) 3. CIT vs ICICI Bank Ltd 343 ITR 74 (Bom) 4. M/s Janata Industries vs PCIT ITA No.4025 & 4026/Mum/2017 dt 23- 05-2018 5. Strongly relying upon the observations of learned PCIT, the learned departmental representative submitted, the order passed under section 263 of the Act is not barred by limitation as it is very much clear that learned P…

Andhra Pradesh Power Generation Corporation Limited, Vijayawada vs. The ACIT, Circle-3(1), Vijayawada

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 167/VIZ/2020[20102-13]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam25 Jun 2021

Bench: Shri N.K.Choudhry, Hon’Ble & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.167/Viz/2020 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year:2012-13) Andhra Pradesh Power Generation Vs. Asst.Commissioner Of Corporation Ltd. Income Tax Vijayawada Circle-3(1) [Pan : Aacca2734J] Vijayawada (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri M.ChandramouleswaraFor Respondent: Shri D.K.Sonowal, CIT(DR)

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 263Section 80I

…आयकरअपीलीयअधिकरण, धिशाखापटणमपीठ, धिशाखापटणम IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, VISAKHAPATNAM BENCH, VISAKHAPATNAM (through web-based video conferencing platform) श्री एन के चौिरी,न्याधयक सदस्य एिं श्री धड.एस .सुन्दर धसंह, लेखा सदस्य के समक्ष BEFORE SHRI N.K.CHOUDHRY, HON’BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI D.S. SUNDER SINGH, HON’BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.167/Viz/2020 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year:2012-13) Andhra Pradesh Power Generation Vs. Asst.Commissioner of Corporation Ltd. Income Tax Vijayawada Circle-3(1) [PAN : AACCA2734J] Vijayawada (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) निर्धाऩरती…

Intelenet Global Services Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax 12(2), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 5844/MUM/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 May 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh () & Shri Ravish Sood () M/S Intelenet Global Services Pvt. Acit – 12(2), 145, Aaykar Ltd; Intelenet Towers, Plot Cst No. Vs. Bhawan, Maharshi Karve Marg, 1406-A/28, Mindspace, Malad (W), Mumbai – 400 020 Mumbai – 400 090. Pan No. Aaaci7387P (Assessee) (Revenue) Assessee By : Shri S.K Tyagi, A.R Revenue By : Shri V. Sreekar, Cit D.R Date Of Hearing : 24/02/2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 24/05/2021

For Appellant: Shri S.K Tyagi, A.RFor Respondent: Shri V. Sreekar, CIT D.R

Section 10ASection 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 68

…Intelenet Global Services Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CIT 12(2), Mumbai 1 ITA No. 5844/Mum/2018 – A.Y 2009-10 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “C” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI M. BALAGANESH (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) AND SHRI RAVISH SOOD (JUDICIAL MEMBER) M/s Intelenet Global Services Pvt. ACIT – 12(2), 145, Aaykar Ltd; Intelenet Towers, Plot CST No. Vs. Bhawan, Maharshi Karve Marg, 1406-A/28, Mindspace, Malad (W), Mumbai – 400 020 Mumbai – 400 090. PAN No. AAACI7387P (Assessee) (Revenue) Assessee by : Shri S.K Tyagi, A.R Revenue by : Shri V. Sreekar, CIT D.R Date of Hearing : 24/02/2021 Date of pronouncement : 24/05/2021…

Jindal Steel & Power Ltd., New Delhi vs. Prcit, Gurugram

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed on the issue of the impugned order passed beyond the prescribed time, other issues are left open

ITA 4607/DEL/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 May 2020AY 2009-10

For Appellant: ShriSalilKapoor, AdvFor Respondent: ShriRaman Chopra[CIT] –

Section 143Section 144CSection 147Section 263Section 263(2)Section 92C

…INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH „C‟ ”H-1”: NEW DELHI BEFORESHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & Shri K N CHARRY , JUDICIAL MEMBER Jindal Steel & Power Ltd. Pr. CIT, 12, BhikajiCama Place, Vs. Gurgaon. New Delhi – 110 029. PAN : AAACJ7097D (Appellant) (Respondent) Revenue by : ShriRaman Chopra[CIT] – DR Assessee by: ShriSalilKapoor, Adv.; ShriSunitLal; Ms. Chandani, Advs.; Ms. AnanyaKapoor, Adv. Date of Hearing 19/03/2020 Date of pronouncement 14/05/2020 O R D E R PER PRASHANT MAHARISHI, A. M. : 01 This appeal is filed by assessee, M/s Jindal steel and Power Ltd ( Assessee , Appellant) against…

Gulab Badgujar (HUF), Thane vs. Commissioner of Income-Tax (Central)

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 799/PUN/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune03 May 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am

For Appellant: Shri Pramod ShingteFor Respondent: Shri Rajeev Kumar, CIT

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 148Section 153CSection 263

…wer by the Commissioner of Income Tax under section 263 of the Act in the present facts and circumstances. 10. We find support from the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of M/s. Ashoka Buildcon Limited Vs. ACIT reported in (2010) 191 Taxmann 29 wherein also the question was of revisionary proceedings initiated under section 263 of the Act against the assessment made which was re-opened under section 147 of the Act. The Hon’ble Bombay High Court noted that the re-assessment proceedings were in relation to a particular grounds and subsequent thereto of passing of the re-assessment and…

Gulab Badgujar (HUF), Thane vs. Commissioner of Income-Tax (Central)

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 798/PUN/2015[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Pune03 May 2019AY 2006-07

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am

For Appellant: Shri Pramod ShingteFor Respondent: Shri Rajeev Kumar, CIT

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 148Section 153CSection 263

Ultratech Cement Limited, Mumbai vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax - Central - 1, Mumbai

Appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 2999/MUM/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Amarjit Singhita No. 3000/Mum/2018 (Assessment Year: 2010-11) Ita No. 3001/Mum/2018 (Assessment Year: 2012-13)

For Appellant: Shri Arvind Sonde &For Respondent: Ms. S. Padmaja, D.R

Section 142Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 263Section 263(2)Section 80I

…en revised under Sec.263 of the Act expired on 31.03.2015 and 31.03.2016 respectively for both the assessment years. The ld. A.R in defence as arguments and propositions relied on a series decision namely...........(D) • Ashoka Buildcon Ltd. vs. ACIT [2010] (325 ITR 574) (Born) • CIT vs. Lark Chemicals Ltd.[201 3] (368 ITR 655) (Born) • L.G. Electronics India (P.) Ltd. vs. PCIT [2014] (388 ITR 135) (All) • Indira Industries vs. PCIT [2018] (95 taxrnann.com 103) (Mad) • Century Textiles & Industries Ltd.vs. DCIT [2011](138 TTJ 83) (Mum) • Tanuj Holdings (P.) Ltd. vs. DOlT [2017] (88 taxrnann.com 385) (Kol) • Arvi…

Metropolitan Stock Exchange of India Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax - 14, Mumbai

In the result, this appeal by the assessee stands partly allowed

ITA 4081/MUM/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Oct 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Am & Shri Ram Lal Negi, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Sumant Chadha &

Section 142Section 147Section 148Section 263

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “I” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA, AM AND SHRI RAM LAL NEGI, JM I.T.A. No.4081/Mum/2018 (Assessment Year: 2010-11) M/s. Metropolitan Stock Exchange of Principal Commissioner of Income India Pvt. Ltd. Tax Act, 1961 Tax – 14, 4th Floor, Vibgyor Tower, R. No. 469, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. 4th Floor, M. K. Road, Plot No. C-62, Opp. Trident Hotel, Bandra Kural Complex, Bandra (E), Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 089 PAN/GIR No. AAFCM 6942 F (Appellant) (Respondent) : Appellant by : Shri Sumant Chadha & Shri Jitendra Trivedi : Shri Anadi Varma Respondent by Date of Hearing : 01.08.201…