Bongaigaon Refinery and Petrochemicals Ltd. v. Union of India

287 ITR 120High Court2006#8373 most cited

What is Bongaigaon Refinery and Petrochemicals Ltd. v. Union of India authority for?

Revisionary powers under Section 263 are limited to correcting orders that are both erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue. An order is not erroneous merely because the Commissioner disagrees with the Assessing Officer's view if that view is legally sustainable.

13

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2025.

Also referred to as

Bongaigaon Refinery and Petrochemicals Ltd. · Section 263 · erroneous and prejudicial · Commissioner's revisional power · jurisdictional error · illegality · assessing officer's view

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 10(37)Section 10(38)Section 115BBESection 119Section 142(1)Section 2(19)

Issues it is cited on

erroneous and prejudicialsection 263section 26section 143(2)section 143(3)total incomedocumentinterest

Judgments citing Bongaigaon Refinery and Petrochemicals Ltd. v. Union of India

Ajay Kumar, Ghaziabad vs. Pr. CIT (Central), Meerut

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 733/DEL/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 May 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263

…on the audit objection was not permissible under the law. Reliance was placed on the following decisions: -  Sohana Woollen Mills, (2008) 296 ITR 0238 (P & H)  Ajay Grover, ITA No. 532/2018 dated 23.11.2022(Del)  Bongaigaon Refinery and Petrochemicals Ltd.287 ITR 120 (Gauhati)  Narayan Tate Ranu, (2016) 47 CCH 309, ITAT Mumbai  Tapas Kumar Mallick, ITAT No. 8142/Del/2018 dated 19.03.2021 19 Ajay Kumar, Ghaziabad  Narendra Aggarwal, ITA No. 456/Del/2021 dated 04.04.2022  Uttam M Jain HUF, ITA No. 2427/Mum/2023 dated 23.11.2023  Krishna Devi, (2021) 431 ITR 361 (Del.)  Indravadan Jain HUF, ITA No. 454 o…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Chandigarh vs. Unipro Techno Infrastructure Pvt Ltd, Chandigarh

In the result, the order of the ld CIT(A) is confirmed and the grounds of appeal taken by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 693/CHANDI/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh03 Sept 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member), SHRI. PARESH M. JOSHI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, Advocate and Shri A.K. Sood, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum Bansal, CIT DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 263Section 80I

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण,च"ीगढ़ "ायपीठ “बी” , च"ीगढ़ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CHANDIGARH BENCH “B”, CHANDIGARH HEARING THROUGH: PHYSICAL MODE "ी िव"म िसंह यादव, लेखा सद" एवं "ी परेश म. जोशी, "ाियक सद" BEFORE: SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, AM & SHRI. PARESH M. JOSHI, JM आयकर अपील सं./ ITA NO. 693/Chd/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2016-17 The DCIT बनाम Unipro Techno Infrastructure Pvt. Circle-1(1), Chandigarh Ltd. SCO 36, Sector 7C, Chandigarh "ायी लेखा सं./PAN NO: AABCU1732D अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""थ"/Respondent िनधा"रती की ओर से/Assessee by : Shri Sudhir Sehgal, Advocate and Shri A.K. Sood, CA राज" की ओर से/…

Nityanand Baug Co Operative Society Limited, Mumbai vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai

In the result, appeal is allowed in the above terms

ITA 2209/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Jul 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri. Br Baskaran & Shri. Raj Kumar Chauhannityanand Baug Co-Operative Vs. Principal Commissioner Of Society Limited Income Tax Plot No. 80/83, Nity Anand Baug, R. Tower No. 6, Vashi Railway C. Marg, Chembur, Mumbai – 400 Station, Commercial Complex, 074. Vashi Navi Mumbai – 400 Pan: Aaaan6410C 703. (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 263Section 80PSection 80P(2)(d)

…lows: a. Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. v/s CIT(2000)243 ITR 83/109 Taxman 66(SC) b. CIT v/s Arvind Jeweller 259 ITR 502 c. CIT v/s Power Finance Corporation (2015)/378 ITR 619 (Delhi) d. Bongoigaon Refinery & Petrochemicals Ltd. v/s Union of India (Gauhati HC) 287 ITR 120 e. CIT v/s Pathy Cine Enterprises 292 ITR 495 f. CIT v/s Mepсо Industries Ltd 294 ITR 121(Section 159) 7. Secondly, it is argued that as per various judgements if one Co-operative Society invests funds in/with other Co-operative Society including Co- operative Bank, the Assessee is entitled to deduction u/s 80P(2)(d). The Ld. AR simply relied upo…

Diamond Beverages Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. PCIT-2, Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 208/KOL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata06 Jul 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Hon’Ble & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 208/Kol/2022 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Diamond Beverages Private Limited Pr. Cit, Kolkata - 2 P-41, Taratala Road Vs Taratala Kolkata – 700 088 Pan : Aabcd3346C अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : S. Agarwal, Aca Revenue By : Md. Ghayas Uddin, Cit, D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 06/07/2022 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 06/07/2022 आदेश/O R D E R Per Shri Rajpal Yadav:

For Appellant: S. Agarwal, ACAFor Respondent: Md. Ghayas Uddin, CIT, D/R
Section 143Section 143(2)Section 263Section 263(1)Section 37Section 80G

…med as erroneous only because CIT disagrees to the view, unless the view taken by the AO is unsustainable in law. Reliance is also placed on the decision in the case of CIT vs. Max Indla Ltd (295 ITR 282) (SC), Bongaigaon Refinery and Petrochemicals Ltd V UOI 287 ITR 120, CIT Pankaj Dhirajlal Dhruve 305 ITR 322, CIT v Nirma Chemicals Works Pvt Ltd 309 ITR 67, Aryan Arcade Limited v CIT 84 Taxmann.com 293(Gujrat) Prayer: In view the above, and in view of the jurisdictional Kolkata ITAT ruling in the case of JMS Mining (supra), it is humbly prayed that as none of the reasons required to invoke proceedings under sec…

DCIT, C-1(1), Chandigarh vs. Unipro Techno Infrastructure Private Limited, Chandigarh

In the result, appeal of the Department is dismissed

ITA 149/CHANDI/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh23 Dec 2020AY 2015-16
For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sandip Dahiya, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263

…ng the order passed by the Pr.CIT, Chandigarh on all these counts and allow the appeal of the assessee. 5. At this stage, it would not be out of context to quote from the decision of the Gauhati High Court in the case of Bongaigaon Refinery and Petrochemical 287 ITR 120 (Gau) where the Court at page 131 para 17 and 18 held as under: "17. Entertainment of a view different from the one adopted by the Assessing Officer, if plausible would not clothe the Commissioner with the power to interfere therewith under the said provision of the Act. Differently put, an error within the jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer…

M/S. Bhandari Hospital and Research Centre, Indore vs. The Pr. CIT-1, Indore

ITA 355/IND/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Indore20 Mar 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 2012-13 M/S Bhandari Hospital & Pr. Cit-(I) Research Centre, Gf-21 & Indore बनाम/ 22, Opp. Meghdoot Garden, Vs. Vijay Nagar, Indore (Appellant) (Revenue ) P.A. No.Aadfb8151A

Section 131(1)(d)Section 143(3)Section 144ASection 263Section 35A

…iry and without application of mind and the same was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. 4.4. Placing reliance on the decision of Hon’ble Gauhati High Court in the case of Bongaigaon Refinery and Petro Chemicals Ltd. vs. Union of India (287 ITR 120), the appellant submits that the error in the order of the Assessing Officer and resultant prejudice to the interest of Revenue are twin factors to coexist for conferring authority on the commissioner to invoke powers u/s 263 of the Act. [ITA No.355/Ind/2017] [Bhandari Hospital & Research Centre] Merely entertaining a different view from the on…

M/S. Span Foundation Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. DCIT, Central Circle - 3(2), Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2521/KOL/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Apr 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri A. T Varkey, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं/.Ita No.2519/Kol/2017 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10) M/S. Garg Brothers Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Dcit, Central Circle- 3(2), Kolkata 57, Burtolla Street, Aayakar Bhawan Poorva, 110, Kolkata – 700 007. Shantipally, Kolkata – 700 107. "थायीलेखासं/.जीआइआरसं/.Pan/Gir No. : Aaacg 9775 F (Assessee) .. (Revenue) & आयकरअपीलसं/.Ita No.2520/Kol/2017 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10) M/S. Cliff Treximpvt. Ltd. Vs. Dcit, Central Circle- 3(2), Kolkata 57, Burtolla Street, Aayakar Bhawan Poorva, 110, Kolkata – 700 007. Shantipally, Kolkata – 700 107. "थायीलेखासं/.जीआइआरसं/.Pan/Gir No. : Aabcc 0961 E (Assessee) .. (Revenue) & आयकरअपीलसं/.Ita No.2521/Kol/2017 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10) M/S. Span Foundation Pvt. Vs. Dcit, Central Circle- Ltd. 3(2), Kolkata Aayakar Bhawan Poorva, 110, 57, Burtolla Street, Shantipally, Kolkata – 700 107. Kolkata – 700 007. "थायीलेखासं/.जीआइआरसं/.Pan/Gir No. : Aaecs 4605 C (Assessee) .. (Revenue)

For Appellant: Shri S.K. Tulsiyan, Advocate & Bhoomija Verma, ARFor Respondent: Shri G. Mallikarjuna, CIT(DR)
Section 263

…wer or the power to rectify would exist. There would be an intermingling of the powers resulting in confusion and uncertainty, a situation definitely not contemplated by any statute." 33. In Bongaigaon Refinery and Petrochemicals Ltd. v. Union of India (2006) 287 ITR 120 (Gau), the Guwahati High Court held as under (page 130): "The above judicial pronouncements therefore adumbrate the essence and extent of the revisional jurisdiction of an authority akin to the Commissioner of Income-tax under the Act. Not only is the exercise of the suomotu power conceptualised therein hedged by the two conditions of error in th…

M/S. Cliff Trexim Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. DCIT, Central Circle - 3(2), Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2520/KOL/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Apr 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri A. T Varkey, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं/.Ita No.2519/Kol/2017 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10) M/S. Garg Brothers Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Dcit, Central Circle- 3(2), Kolkata 57, Burtolla Street, Aayakar Bhawan Poorva, 110, Kolkata – 700 007. Shantipally, Kolkata – 700 107. "थायीलेखासं/.जीआइआरसं/.Pan/Gir No. : Aaacg 9775 F (Assessee) .. (Revenue) & आयकरअपीलसं/.Ita No.2520/Kol/2017 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10) M/S. Cliff Treximpvt. Ltd. Vs. Dcit, Central Circle- 3(2), Kolkata 57, Burtolla Street, Aayakar Bhawan Poorva, 110, Kolkata – 700 007. Shantipally, Kolkata – 700 107. "थायीलेखासं/.जीआइआरसं/.Pan/Gir No. : Aabcc 0961 E (Assessee) .. (Revenue) & आयकरअपीलसं/.Ita No.2521/Kol/2017 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10) M/S. Span Foundation Pvt. Vs. Dcit, Central Circle- Ltd. 3(2), Kolkata Aayakar Bhawan Poorva, 110, 57, Burtolla Street, Shantipally, Kolkata – 700 107. Kolkata – 700 007. "थायीलेखासं/.जीआइआरसं/.Pan/Gir No. : Aaecs 4605 C (Assessee) .. (Revenue)

For Appellant: Shri S.K. Tulsiyan, Advocate & Bhoomija Verma, ARFor Respondent: Shri G. Mallikarjuna, CIT(DR)
Section 263

…wer or the power to rectify would exist. There would be an intermingling of the powers resulting in confusion and uncertainty, a situation definitely not contemplated by any statute." 33. In Bongaigaon Refinery and Petrochemicals Ltd. v. Union of India (2006) 287 ITR 120 (Gau), the Guwahati High Court held as under (page 130): "The above judicial pronouncements therefore adumbrate the essence and extent of the revisional jurisdiction of an authority akin to the Commissioner of Income-tax under the Act. Not only is the exercise of the suomotu power conceptualised therein hedged by the two conditions of error in th…

M/S. Garg Brothers Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. DCIT, Central Circle - 3(2), Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2519/KOL/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Apr 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri A. T Varkey, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं/.Ita No.2519/Kol/2017 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10) M/S. Garg Brothers Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Dcit, Central Circle- 3(2), Kolkata 57, Burtolla Street, Aayakar Bhawan Poorva, 110, Kolkata – 700 007. Shantipally, Kolkata – 700 107. "थायीलेखासं/.जीआइआरसं/.Pan/Gir No. : Aaacg 9775 F (Assessee) .. (Revenue) & आयकरअपीलसं/.Ita No.2520/Kol/2017 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10) M/S. Cliff Treximpvt. Ltd. Vs. Dcit, Central Circle- 3(2), Kolkata 57, Burtolla Street, Aayakar Bhawan Poorva, 110, Kolkata – 700 007. Shantipally, Kolkata – 700 107. "थायीलेखासं/.जीआइआरसं/.Pan/Gir No. : Aabcc 0961 E (Assessee) .. (Revenue) & आयकरअपीलसं/.Ita No.2521/Kol/2017 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10) M/S. Span Foundation Pvt. Vs. Dcit, Central Circle- Ltd. 3(2), Kolkata Aayakar Bhawan Poorva, 110, 57, Burtolla Street, Shantipally, Kolkata – 700 107. Kolkata – 700 007. "थायीलेखासं/.जीआइआरसं/.Pan/Gir No. : Aaecs 4605 C (Assessee) .. (Revenue)

For Appellant: Shri S.K. Tulsiyan, Advocate & Bhoomija Verma, ARFor Respondent: Shri G. Mallikarjuna, CIT(DR)
Section 263

…wer or the power to rectify would exist. There would be an intermingling of the powers resulting in confusion and uncertainty, a situation definitely not contemplated by any statute." 33. In Bongaigaon Refinery and Petrochemicals Ltd. v. Union of India (2006) 287 ITR 120 (Gau), the Guwahati High Court held as under (page 130): "The above judicial pronouncements therefore adumbrate the essence and extent of the revisional jurisdiction of an authority akin to the Commissioner of Income-tax under the Act. Not only is the exercise of the suomotu power conceptualised therein hedged by the two conditions of error in th…

M/S Akanksha Viniyog Ltd vs. C.I.T. I, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1713/KOL/2013[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 Jul 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh, Am & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm]

For Appellant: Shri Subash Agarwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Niraj Kumar, CIT, Sr. DR
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 147Section 14ASection 263

…e view with which CIT does not agree, the order cannot be treated as erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue unless the view taken by the A.O. is unsustainable in law.” Bongaigaon Refinery and Petrochemicals Ltd vs Union of India reported in 287 ITR 120 (Gau) “"Entertainment of a view different from the one adopted by the Assessing Ofjicer, if plausible would not clothe the Commissioner with the power to interfere therewith under the said provision of the Act. Differently put, an error within the jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer on an evaluation of the materials available would not be expo…

M/S. Century Textiles and Industries Ltd, Mumbai vs. The ACIT Cir 6(2), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 5677/MUM/2008[2005-2006]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Apr 2016AY 2005-2006

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Rajesh Kumar

Section 105Section 106Section 10BSection 115JSection 143Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263

…diction under section 263. In support, reliance was placed on the decision of Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT vs. Arvind Jewellers, 259 ITR 502; and Gauhati High Court in the case of Bongaigaon Refinery and Petrochemicals vs. Union of India, reported in 287 ITR 120; (v) After the concept of block of assets, the group of asset is entitled for same rate of depreciation and is clubbed together under the same block for calculating the depreciation. The concept of use of asset is relevant for first year when the asset is brought to use and it enters the block. However, in the subsequent year, the identity of an…

M/S. Century Textiles and Industries Ltd, Mumbai vs. The ACIT RG 6(2), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 4875/MUM/2008[2004-2005]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Apr 2016AY 2004-2005

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Rajesh Kumar

Section 105Section 106Section 10BSection 115JSection 143Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263

…diction under section 263. In support, reliance was placed on the decision of Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT vs. Arvind Jewellers, 259 ITR 502; and Gauhati High Court in the case of Bongaigaon Refinery and Petrochemicals vs. Union of India, reported in 287 ITR 120; (v) After the concept of block of assets, the group of asset is entitled for same rate of depreciation and is clubbed together under the same block for calculating the depreciation. The concept of use of asset is relevant for first year when the asset is brought to use and it enters the block. However, in the subsequent year, the identity of an…

M/S. Fairland Development Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. CIT-II, Kolkata

ITA 786/KOL/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 Jan 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Am] Assessment Year : 2007-08

For Appellant: Shri Subash Agarwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Niraj Kumar, CIT(DR)
Section 143(3)Section 263

…y which was the first year of the operation there cannot be any addition on account of unexplained cash credit. In this regard the assessee placed reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Gauhati High Court in the case of Bongaigaon Refinery and Petrochemicals 287 ITR 120 (Gau). The assessee accordingly prayed that the proposal for revision u/s 263 of the Act should be dropped. 5. CIT, however was of the view that the AO had not made proper enquiries with regard to the advance of Rs.1.23 crores received from prospective purchasers of land. CIT observed as follows :- “As per the Balance Sheet, the assessee investe…

Bongaigaon Refinery and Petrochemicals Ltd. v. Union of India (287 ITR 120) — Cited in 13 Judgments | BharatTax