CIT v. A.R. Builders & Developers P Ltd.

425 ITR 272High Court2020#15847 most cited
6

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 331,145 Indian tax judgments — from 2022 to 2025.

Sections most often in play

Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 148Section 17(2)Section 263

Issues it is cited on

section 263ofsection 80hhc(3)section 17(2)section 36(1)(viia)inadequate enquirysection 80hhcrevision under section 263section 80hhsection 263(1)lack of enquirymalabar industrialsection 36(1)(vii)

Judgments citing CIT v. A.R. Builders & Developers P Ltd.

M/S. City Union Bank Ltd., Kumbakonam vs. PCIT, Madurai

In the result, the appeal for A

ITA 1126/CHNY/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri S. R. Raghunatha

For Appellant: Shri. S. Ananthan, F.C.A. &For Respondent: Shri. Bipin C.N., CIT
Section 115JSection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 17(2)Section 263Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)

…nts the Ld.ARs relied on the following judicial precedents: - CIT (Central), Ludhiana vs Max India Ltd – [2007] 295 ITR 282 (SC) PCIT Vs.V-con Integrated Solutions Pvt. Ltd. – [2025] 173 taxmann.com - 774 (SC) CIT Vs. A.R. Builders & Developers P Ltd – [2020] 425 ITR 272 (Mad) - Shri Perinba Raja Ramesh Versus PCIT (Central) Chennai-1 And Shri - PaulpandianUthamaraj Winston Versus PCIT (Central) Chennai-1 - ITA Nos. :418 to 421/Chny/2025 And ITA Nos. :422 to 425/Chny/2025 – order dated 03-06-2025. 9. The ld.ARs further submitted that on similar set of facts in assessee’s own case the orders passed u/s.263 of the…

M/S. City Union Bank, Kumbakonam vs. PCIT, Madurai

In the result, both the appeals for A

ITA 1479/CHNY/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Sept 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 1478 & 1479/Chny/2025 धनिाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2020-21 & 2021-22 M/S. City Union Bank, Pcit No. 148-149, T.S.R Big Street, Vs. Madurai – 1. Kumbakonam – 621 001. Tamil Nadu. [Pan: Aaacc-1287-E] (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/Respondent) अपीलाथी की ओर से/Appellant By : Mr. S. Ananthan, Ca & Ms. R. Lalitha, Ca प्रत्यथी की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. E. Pavuna Sundari, Cit. सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 28.08.2025 घोर्णा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 09.09.2025

For Appellant: Mr. S. Ananthan, CA and Ms. R. Lalitha, CAFor Respondent: Ms. E. Pavuna Sundari, CIT
Section 17(2)Section 263Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)

…the Ld. ARs relied on the following judicial precedents: - CIT (Central), Ludhiana vs Max India Ltd – [2007] 295 ITR 282 (SC) - PCIT Vs.V-con Integrated Solutions Pvt. Ltd. – [2025] 173 taxmann.com 774 (SC) - CIT Vs. A.R. Builders & Developers P Ltd – [2020] 425 ITR 272 (Mad) - Shri Perinba Raja Ramesh Versus PCIT (Central) Chennai-1 And Shri PaulpandianUthamaraj Winston Versus PCIT (Central) Chennai-1 - ITA Nos. :418 to 421/Chny/2025 And ITA Nos.:422 to 425/Chny/2025 – order dated 03.06.2025. 7. Per contra the ld.DR Mrs. E. Pavuna Sundari – CIT-DR, submitted that while passing the assessment order the AO has no…

M/S. City Union Bank, Kumbakonam vs. PCIT, Madurai

In the result, both the appeals for A

ITA 1478/CHNY/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Sept 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 1478 & 1479/Chny/2025 धनिाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2020-21 & 2021-22 M/S. City Union Bank, Pcit No. 148-149, T.S.R Big Street, Vs. Madurai – 1. Kumbakonam – 621 001. Tamil Nadu. [Pan: Aaacc-1287-E] (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/Respondent) अपीलाथी की ओर से/Appellant By : Mr. S. Ananthan, Ca & Ms. R. Lalitha, Ca प्रत्यथी की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. E. Pavuna Sundari, Cit. सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 28.08.2025 घोर्णा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 09.09.2025

For Appellant: Mr. S. Ananthan, CA and Ms. R. Lalitha, CAFor Respondent: Ms. E. Pavuna Sundari, CIT
Section 17(2)Section 263Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)

…the Ld. ARs relied on the following judicial precedents: - CIT (Central), Ludhiana vs Max India Ltd – [2007] 295 ITR 282 (SC) - PCIT Vs.V-con Integrated Solutions Pvt. Ltd. – [2025] 173 taxmann.com 774 (SC) - CIT Vs. A.R. Builders & Developers P Ltd – [2020] 425 ITR 272 (Mad) - Shri Perinba Raja Ramesh Versus PCIT (Central) Chennai-1 And Shri PaulpandianUthamaraj Winston Versus PCIT (Central) Chennai-1 - ITA Nos. :418 to 421/Chny/2025 And ITA Nos.:422 to 425/Chny/2025 – order dated 03.06.2025. 7. Per contra the ld.DR Mrs. E. Pavuna Sundari – CIT-DR, submitted that while passing the assessment order the AO has no…

Bank of Maharashra, Pune vs. The Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax, Pune

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

ITA 682/PUN/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Dec 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Ananthan and Mrs. Lalitha RameswaranFor Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar, CIT-DR
Section 115JSection 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 36(1)(viia)Section 40A(7)

…a Projects (P.) Ltd. (2023) 150 taxmann.com 313 (Del) iv) PCIT vs. Clix Finance India (P.) Ltd. (2024) 160 taxmann.com 357 (Del) v) Prudential Assurance Co. Ltd. vs. DIT (IT) (2010) 191 Taxman 62 (Bom) vi) CIT vs. M/s. A.R. Builders & Developers P Ltd. (2020) 425 ITR 272 (Mad) vii) KN Agarwal vs. CIT (1991) 189 ITR 769 (All) viii) CIT vs. M/s. Dhaneswar Rath Institute of Engineering & Medical Sciences (2023) 458 ITR 509 (Ori) ix) DCIT vs. Bank of Maharashtra 2020 (3) 877 – ITAT, Pune x) Madhya Gujarat Vij Company Ltd. vs. PCIT 2024-TIOL-1019-ITAT-Ahm xi) PCIT vs. M/s. Sinhotia Metals and Minerals Pvt. Ltd. (2023)…

M/S Fortune Metaliks Limited, Ludhiana vs. Pr.CIT(Central), Ludhiana

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 82/CHANDI/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh09 Mar 2022AY 2016-17
For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sandeep Dahiya, CIT-DR Khanna
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 263(1)Section 56(2)Section 56(2)(vii)

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण,च"डीगढ़ "यायपीठ च"डीगढ़ "यायपीठ ‘‘ए’, च"डीगढ़ च"डीगढ़ आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण च"डीगढ़ "यायपीठ च"डीगढ़ "यायपीठ च"डीगढ़ च"डीगढ़ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CHANDIGARH BENCH ‘A’ CHANDIGARH BEFORE: SMT. DIVA SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं./ ITA No. 82/CHD/2021 आयकर आयकर आयकर अपील अपील िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" / A.Y : 2016-17 िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" M/s Fortune Metaliks Limited, The Pr.CIT (Central), बनाम Opp. Circuit House, Ferozepur Road, Ludhiana. VS Ludhiana. "थायी लेखा सं./PAN /TAN No: AABCF3202D अप…

Sh. Surinder Pal Singh, Ludhiana vs. Pr.CIT-1, Ludhiana

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 57/CHANDI/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh31 Jan 2022AY 2015-16
For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sarabjeet Singh, CIT
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 263(1)

…ing case laws ; • Malabar Industries Co. Ltd. Vs. CIT (2000) 243 ITR 83 (SC)] • CIT Vs. Deepak Mittal reported in 324 ITR 411 (P&H) • Pr. CIT Vs. Kesoram Industries Ltd. reported in (2020) 423 ITR 180 (Cal) • CIT Vs. A.R. Builders & Developers P. Ltd. (2020) 425 ITR 272 (Mad.) • CIT Vs. Late Shri Vijay Kumar Koganti Through LR Smt. Brundavani Koganti (2020) 195 DTR (Mad) 428, • Pr. CIT Vs. N.K. Proteins Ltd. reported in (2020) 429 ITR 493 (Guj) • Kusumlata Sonthalia Vs. Pr. CIT (ITAT Kolkata) (2020) 82 ITR (Trib) 382 • Narain SinglaVs PCIT ITA No. 427/Chd/2015 Chd-Trib order dated 31/08/2015 • CIT Vs Anil Kumar…