CIT v. Alagendran Finance Ltd.

293 ITR 1Supreme Court of India2007#797 most cited

What is CIT v. Alagendran Finance Ltd. authority for?

The limitation period for initiating revision proceedings under Section 263 concerning matters not subject to reassessment begins from the date of the original assessment order, not the reassessment order. The doctrine of merger does not apply to issues not examined during reassessment proceedings.

129

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,470 Indian tax judgments — from 2013 to 2026.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Alagendran Finance Ltd. · Section 263 · Section 147 · Section 148 · doctrine of merger · revision limitation · original assessment order · reassessment order · unexamined issues

Also reported as

162 Taxmann 465

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 147Section 148Section 68Section 143(1)Section 40A(3)Section 142(1)
Read the full judgment

Issues it is cited on

section 263(2)section 86section 198section 147ofsection 92edoctrine of mergerrevision u/s 263section 263(1)related party transactionsection 115jb(2)lack of enquiryerroneous and prejudicial

Judgments citing CIT v. Alagendran Finance Ltd.

Vinay Bawri, Kolkata vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2, Guwahati

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 42/GTY/2021[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati22 Sept 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

Section 143(3)Section 153(3)Section 153ASection 154Section 263Section 263(1)

…imitation and, therefore, the order passed by Ld. Pr. CIT u/s. 263 of the Act is invalid and liable to be quashed. In defense of his argument, Ld. Counsel relied on the decision passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs Alagendran Finance Ltd (293 ITR 1) (SC) and by Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. ICICI Bank Limited (2012) 343 ITR 74 (Bom.). The ld. A.R. submitted that in both these decisions, the Hon’ble Courts have held that the two years period of limitation shall run from the end of financial year in which the original assessment was framed and not from the end of financial ye…

Principal Commissioner of Income Tax 1 Kolkata vs. M/S K M Khadim and Co

ITAT/148/2023HC Calcutta17 Jul 2023

Bench: : The Hon’Ble The Chief Justice T.S. Sivagnanam & The Hon’Ble Justice Hiranmay Bhattacharyya Date : 17Th July, 2023 Appearance : Ms. Smita Das De, Adv. Mr. Amit Sharma, Adv. …For Appellant The Court : This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Under Section 260A Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act) Is Directed Against The Order Dated 21.12.2022 Passed By The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “B” Bench, Kolkata (The Tribunal) In Ita/278/Kol/2022 For The Assessment Year 2014-15. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Substantial Questions Of Law For Consideration : 1. Whether On The Facts Of The Case & In Law, The Learned Tribunal Was Justified In Quashing The Order Under Section 263 Of The Said Act Ignoring The Fact That The Assessing Officer In His Order Under Section 143[3] Read With Section 263 Dated 23.12.2019 Concluded That Rs.3,63,122/- Should Be Added As

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 260ASection 263

…r of the reassessment. The limitation was necessarily begun to run from the date of order passed under Section 143(3) of the Act. 5 Reference was also made to the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT VS.ALAGENDRAN FINANCE LIMITED ;(2007) 293 ITR 1 (SC). Thus, we find that the order passed by the learned Tribunal had been passed taking note of the correct legal position and referring to the relevant decision and the said order does not call for any interference. Accordingly, the appeal as well as the connected application is dismissed. The substantial questions of law are answered against the…

Zulu Merchandise (P)Ltd, Kolkata vs. PCIT 2, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 380/KOL/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata11 Jul 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Sri Rajesh Kumar & Sonjoy Sarma

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 2Section 249Section 253Section 263Section 3Section 5

…the order passed u/s 143(1) of the Act dated 18.06.2013. Ld. A/R therefore, prayed that the revisionary jurisdiction exercised by ld. AO is hopelessly barred by limitation by relying on the following decisions: (i) CIT –vs.- Alagendran Finance Limited (2007) 293 ITR 1 (SC); Page 7 of 12 I.T.A. No.: 380/KOL/2023 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Zulu Merchandise Pvt. Ltd. (ii) CIT –vs.- ICICI Bank Limited (2012) 343 ITR 74 (Bom.). 10. The Ld. D.R. on the other hand relied heavily on the order of LD. PCIT by submitting that the assessee is not put to any loss by the exercise of jurisdiction as the assessee would be given…

Sanjay Mittal, Ambikapur vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Central), Bhopal

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 44/RPR/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur11 Jul 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.44/Rpr/2022 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2015-16 Shri Sanjay Mittal 23/272, Agrasen Ward, Kharsia Road, Ambikapur, Sarguja (C.G.) Pan : Adtpm5911C .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Central), Bhopal ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri R.B Doshi, CAFor Respondent: Shri V.K Singh, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 147Section 263Section 54F

…to have revised the order that was passed by the A.O u/ss. 143(3)/147 of the Act dated 23.12.2018. Our aforesaid observation is supported by the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Alagendran Finance Ltd. (2007) 293 ITR 1(SC). The Hon’ble Apex Court in its aforesaid order, had held, that as the case before them was reopened on an issue which did not form subject of reassessment proceedings, thus the period of limitation provided for under sub-section (2) to Section 263 of the Act would begin to run from the date of the order of assessment and not from the order of r…

Evergreen Agency Private Limited, Kolkata vs. PCIT-2, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 138/KOL/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata27 Jun 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A No.138/Kol/2022 Assessment Year: 2011-12 Evergreen Agency Pvt. Ltd…………………................................……Appellant Maurya Patna, South Gandhi Maidan, Patna-800001. [Pan: Aaace5390A] Vs. Pcit, Kolkata-2…………………….............……........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Siddharth Agarwal, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Abhijit Kundu, Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : May 04, 2023 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : June 27, 2023 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 17.03.2021 Of The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Pcit’) Agitating The Exercise Of His Revision Jurisdiction U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). 2. There Is Note By The Registry Of Delay Of 302 Days In Filing Of The Appeal. A Separate Application For Condonation Of Delay Has Been Filed, Wherein, It Has Been Pointed Out That The Delay Period Was Pertaining To Covid-2019 Pandemic Period. In View Of The Directions Of The Hon’Ble

Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 14ASection 263Section 68

…order passed u/s 147 of the Act and therefore, the revision order passed by the PCIT u/s 263 of the Act was time-barred. He in this respect has placed reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of ‘CIT vs. Alagendran Finance Ltd. [2007] 293 ITR 1(SC)’, wherein, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has categorically held that where the Commissioner has sought to revise only that part of the assessment order, the subject-matter of which had nothing to do with that item of income, in such a case, doctrine of merger did not apply and that the period of limitation would commence from the date of original a…

Kross Limited, Jamshedpur vs. PCIT, Ranchi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 34/RAN/2022[12-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi06 Jun 2023

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 263(2)Section 56(2)(vii)

…ed the original assessment passed u/s 143(3) of the Act but it is barred by limitation and the assessment as farmed u/s 143(3) r.w.s 147 of the Act which is against the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs Alagendran Finance Ltd (293 ITR 1) (SC) and CIT vs. ICICI Bank Limited (2012) 343 ITR 74 (Bom.). The ld. A.R. submitted that in both these decisions, the Hon’ble Courts have held that the two 4 AY: 2012-13 Kross Limited years period of limitation shall run from the end of financial year in which the original assessment was framed and not from the end of financial year in which the…

Ken Financial Services Ltd., Mumbai vs. Pr. CIT - 4, Mumbai

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 894/MUM/2021[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 May 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri S Rifaur Rahmanvk-Vk-La- 894@Eaqcbz@2021 ¼Fu-Oa- 2010&11½ Ken Financial Services Ltd. 101, Shah Arcade, A Wing, Shah Archade Sra Chs Ltd Rani Sati Marg, Malad (E) Mumbai-400 097 ..... Vihykfkhz/Appellant Pan No. Aaack4929K Cuke Vs. Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax Room No. 629, 6Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, ..... Izfroknh/Respondent Mumbai-400 020

For Appellant: Dr. K. Shivaram & Shri Rahul Hakani izfroknh }kjk@For Respondent: Shri Byomakesh P. K. Panda, CIT-DR
Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 263

…reopening assessment. 2) If at all, the PCIT wanted to examine opening balances, the PCIT should have revised order passed u/s 143(1) of the Act. In support of his submissions, he placed reliance on the decision in the case of CIT vs. Alagendran Finance Ltd., 293 ITR 1 (SC). In case, the time limit for revision of order u/s 143(1) had elapsed. Therefore, the PCIT could not have revised order u/s 143(1) of the Act. To support this contention, the ld. Counsel placed reliance on the decision of Tribunal in the case of Om Kailash and Investment Pvt. Ltd. vs. PCIT in ITA No.1782/Mum/2022, for the AY 2010-11 decided on…

Aayush Commerce Private Limited, Patna vs. PCIT-2, Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 139/KOL/2022[2011-12]Status: HeardITAT Kolkata24 May 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 139/Kol/2022 Assessment Year: 2011-12 Aayush Commerce Private Limited Pcit, Kolkata – 2 Maurya Patna Vs South Gandhi Maidan Patna - 800001 [Pan : Aacca0933B] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Siddharth Agarwal, A/R Revenue By : Shri Subhrajyoti Bhattacharjee, Cit, D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 21/03/2023 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 24/05/2023 आदेश/O R D E R Per Rajesh Kumar: This Is The Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Learned Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax - 2, Kolkata (Hereinafter Referred To As The Ld. Pr. Cit”], Passed U/S 263 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter The ‘Act’), Dated 09/03/2021 For The Assessment Year 2011-12. 2. We Note That There Is A Delay Of 311 (Three Hundred & Eleven Days) Days In Filing The Present Appeal Before The Tribunal. The Impugned Order Is Dated 09/03/2021, Which Falls Within The Period Of Pandemic Of Covid-19. Petition For Condonation Of Delay Is Placed On Record By Assessee Explaining The Reasons For Delay, Owing To Pandemic Of Covid-19 During That Time. It Is Noted That The Period Of Delay Falls During The Time Of Pandemic Of Covid-19 Which Has Been Excluded By The Hon’Ble Supreme Court In The Case Of Suo Moto Writ Petition (C) No. 3 Of 2020 Dated 10.01.2022 By Which The Period From 15.03.2020 To 28.02.2022 Has Been Directed To Be Excluded For The Purpose Of Limitation. Vide This Order A

For Appellant: Shri Siddharth Agarwal, A/RFor Respondent: Shri Subhrajyoti Bhattacharjee, CIT, D/R
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 14ASection 263Section 263(2)Section 68

…| आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण "यायपीठ, कोलकाता | IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, HON’BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI SONJOY SARMA, HON’BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. No. 139/Kol/2022 Assessment Year: 2011-12 Aayush Commerce Private Limited PCIT, Kolkata – 2 Maurya Patna Vs South Gandhi Maidan Patna - 800001 [PAN : AACCA0933B] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Siddharth Agarwal, A/R Revenue by : Shri Subhrajyoti Bhattacharjee, CIT, D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date of Hearing : 21/03/2023 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date of Pronouncement: 24/05/2023 आदेश/O R D E R PER RA…

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…

Agroh Infrastructure Developers P Ltd, Mhow vs. Pr CIT Central Circle Bhopal, Bhopal

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 95/IND/2021[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Indore11 Apr 2023AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanim/S Agroh Infrastructure Pr. Cit (Central) Developers Pvt. Ltd. Bhopal Aqua Point, A.B.Road, Vs. Umaria, Mhow, Indore (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Aaeca 2752 L Assessee By Shri Manish Mittal, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 10.04.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 11.04.2023

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, इंदौर "यायपीठ, इंदौर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL INDORE BENCH, INDORE BEFORE SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI B.M. BIYANI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER M/s Agroh Infrastructure Pr. CIT (Central) Developers Pvt. Ltd. Bhopal Aqua Point, A.B.Road, Vs. Umaria, Mhow, Indore (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) PAN: AAECA 2752 L Assessee by Shri Manish Mittal, AR Revenue by Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 10.04.2023 Date of Pronouncement 11.04.2023 O R D E R Per Vijay Pal Rao, JM: This appeal by the assessee is directed against the revision order dated 24.02.2021 of L…

Shri Fateh Chand Chindalia, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward 40(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 185/KOL/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata16 Mar 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A No.185/Kol/2022 Assessment Year: 2011-12 Shri Fateh Chand Chindalia........................................………...…..…Appellant 4A, Sayed Sally Street, Kolkata-700073. [Pan: Adfpc9919G] Vs. Ito, Ward-40(1), Kolkata......................................................…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Sunil Surana, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Subhrajyoti Bhattacharjee, Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : January 24, 2023 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : March 16, 2023 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 19.03.2021 Of The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax -1, Kolkata [Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Pcit’] Exercising His Revision Jurisdiction U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). 2. The Assessee In This Appeal Has Taken The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. For That The Ld. Pcit Erred In Invoking The Provisions Of Section 263 When The Assessment Completed U/S 143(3)/147 On 26.12.2018 Was Neither Erroneous Nor Prejudicial To The Interest Of Revenue.

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263

…t the subject-matter of the reassessment proceedings. Therefore, the revision order passed by the PCIT u/s 263 is otherwise time-barred. Reliance can be placed on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of ‘CIT vs. Alagendran Finance Ltd. [2007] 293 ITR 1(SC)’, wherein, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has categorically held that where the Commissioner has sought to revise only that part of the assessment order, the subject- matter of which had nothing to do with that item of income. In such a case doctrine of merger did not apply and the period of limitation would commence from the date of original assess…

Ultra Tech Cement Ltd., Mumbai vs. Asstt. CIT CC-1(4), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1303/MUM/2021[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Feb 2023AY 2010-11
Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 154(7)Section 250Section 801ASection 80I

…g to disturb that claim of deduction u/s.80IA of the Act in the impugned 154 proceedings dated 27/03/2018. 4.7. We further find that the ld. AR placed reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of CIT vs. Alagendran Finance Ltd reported in 293 ITR 1 (SC). That case was concerned with revision proceedings u/s.263 of the Act where after the passing of the original assessment order, the assessment proceedings were reopened and re- assessment order was passed. Against the said re-assessment order, the revision proceedings has been initiated for denial of that assessee’s claim of deduction of lease…

Bhuvneshwari Vyapaar Private Ltd, Mumbai vs. Principle Commissioner of Income Tax P-CIT, Mumbai-1, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1297/MUM/2022[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Feb 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm Bhuvneshwari Vyapaar Private Limited Pcit,Mumbai-1 710/A Wing Dattani Plaza Room No. 330, 3 R D Floor, Aayakar Vs. Commercial Premises, Safed Pool, Bhavan, M.K.Road, Mumbai-400 020 Andheri Kurla Road, Andheri East, Mumbai- 400 072 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aadcb4386N

For Appellant: Shri. Prakash G. Jhunjhunwala, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Mahesh Akhade, CIT DR
Section 131Section 143Section 148Section 263Section 263(1)

…ded or assessed, and nor the original assessment is made. Therefore, not all revisionary orders passed are sustainable. He relied up on CIT V Lakshmi Vilas Bank Ltd.* [2023] 146 taxmann.com 227 (Madras) and CIT v. Alagendran Finance Ltd. [2007] 162 Taxman 465/293 ITR 1 (SC). 06. The learned departmental representative vehemently supported the orders of the lower authorities. It was stated that the learned assessing officer has deleted the addition as per order dated 21/12/2016 in cryptic manner. Further in earlier assessment order passed by same income tax authority has made the addition, therefore the deletion…

Jvr Retails Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle -2(1), Hyderabad

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

ITA 175/HYD/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad31 Jan 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri K.Narasimha Charyassessment Year: 2012-13 Jvr Retails Private Limited Vs Dcit, Circle-2(1) C/O. Murali & Co. . Hyderabad Chartered Accountants 6-3-655/2/3, Somajiguda Hyderabad-500 082 Pan : Aaccv9428J (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri M.V.Joshi Appeared For P.Murali Mohan Rao, Ca Revenue By: Shri Jeevan Lal Lavidiya, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 14.01.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 31.01.2023 O R D E R Per Shri Rama Kanta Panda (A.M.): This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 16.03.2021 Passed U/S. 263 By The Learned Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax -2, Hyderabad Relating To A Y 2012-13. 2. Facts Of The Case, In Brief, Are That The Assessee Is A Domestic Company Engaged In The Business Of Retails & Manufacturing Of Jewelry. It Filed Its Return Of Income Declaring Total Income Of Rs. 49,97,390/- On 08.09.2012 Which Was Processed U/S 143(1) On 21.02.2013. Subsequently, The Ao Reopened The Assessment By Recording Reasons As Per Provisions Of Section 147. The Reasons To Believe Which Was Put Up Before The Ld.Pcit-2 For Approval & Which Has Been Reproduced By The Ao In The Body Of The Assessment Order Read As Under:-

For Appellant: Shri M.V.Joshi appeared for P.Murali Mohan Rao, CAFor Respondent: Shri Jeevan Lal
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL Hyderabad ‘B’ Bench, Hyderabad Before Shri Rama Kanta Panda, Accountant Member AND Shri K.Narasimha Chary, Judicial Member Assessment Year: 2012-13 JVR Retails Private Limited Vs DCIT, Circle-2(1) C/o. Murali & Co. . Hyderabad Chartered Accountants 6-3-655/2/3, Somajiguda Hyderabad-500 082 PAN : AACCV9428J (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by: Shri M.V.Joshi appeared for P.Murali Mohan Rao, CA Revenue by: Shri Jeevan Lal Lavidiya, CIT-DR Date of hearing: 14.01.2023 Date of pronouncement: 31.01.2023 O R D E R Per Shri Rama Kanta Panda (A.M.): This appeal filed by the assessee…

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)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL "E" BENCH, MUMBAI SHRI M. BALAGANESH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER Manohar Manak Alloys Pvt. Ltd., C/o. D.C. Bothra & Co. LLP (CA) [formerly known as D.C. Bothra & Co.], 297, Tardeo Road, Wille Mansion, 1st Floor, Opp. Bank of India, Nana Chowk, Mumbai - 400007 [PAN: AAACM2688K] …………… Appellant Pr.CIT (Central), Mumbai, Vs Room No. 1920, 19th Floor, Air India Building, Nariman Point, Mumbai - 400021 ……………… Respondent Appearances For the Appellant/Assessee : Shri Rajkumar Singh For the Respondent/Department : Shri A.B. Koli Date of conclusion of hea…

M/S K.M. Khadim & Co., Kolkata vs. PCIT-1, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 278/KOL/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata21 Dec 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

Section 143(3)Section 263

…9. The ld. AR argued that, in any case, the order passed u/s 143(3) dated 26.12.2016 is also barred by limitation so the power of the Ld. PCIT can also not to be exercised by relying on the following decisions: (i) CIT –vs.- Alagendran Finance Limited (2007) 293 ITR 1 (SC); (ii) CIT –vs.- ICICI Bank Limited (2012) 343 ITR 74 (Bom.). 6. The Ld. D.R. on the other hand relied heavily on the order of LD. PCIT by submitting that the assessee is not put to any loss by the exercise of jurisdiction as the assessee would be given sufficient time and enough opportunity to present its case, therefore the appeal of the ass…

Mohideen Gafoor, Chennai vs. Income Tax Officer, Non Corporate Ward 1(3), Chennai

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

ITA 137/CHNY/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai16 Nov 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri G. Manjunatha

For Appellant: Shri N V Narayanan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri R. Mohan Reddy, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263

…ision of the Delhi Bench of this Tribunal in the case of Dholadhar Investment Pvt. Ltd., vs. CIT in ITA No.628/Del/2010 vide order dated 31.10.2011. He also relied on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Alagendran Finance Ltd., (2007) 293 ITR 1, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has considered the Explanation ‘C’ to section 263(1) of the Act and noted that the Explanation ‘C’ deals with the powers of CIT in revision, which is clear and unambiguous, as in terms thereof, the doctrine of merger applies only in respect of special items which were the subject matter of appeal and not in respec…

Indian Co-Op Network for Women Ltd, Chennai vs. PCIT, Chennai

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

ITA 104/CHNY/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai16 Nov 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri G. Manjunatha

For Appellant: Shri K.R. Adivarahan, CAFor Respondent: Shri S. Maruthu Pandian, CIT
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263

…vide order dated 24.09.2014. The revision order was passed by the PCIT on 19.02.2021, which is clearly barred by limitation. The ld.AR for this proposition relied on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Alagendran Finance Ltd., (2007) 293 ITR 1. 6. On the other hand, the ld. CIT-DR relied on the revision order passed by PCIT and stated that the concept of merger will apply and the reassessment order is merged with the order passed by the PCIT u/s.263 revising the assessment. Apart from this, the ld.CIT- DR could not argue much on this issue. 7. Having heard rival contentions and going th…

Essel Mining & Industries Limited, Mumbai vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-Central-1, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3202/MUM/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Nov 2022AY 2009-10
Section 127(2)Section 132Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 148Section 153CSection 263

…he date of completion of original assessment i.e. from 30/12/2011 and not from the search assessment framed on 29/03/2016. Reliance in this regard is placed on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Alagendran Finance Ltd reported in 293 ITR 1. (ii) Since search took place in the case of Aditya Birla Group on 16/10/2013, consequently proceedings were initiated in the hands of the assessee u/s.153C of the Act on 26/11/2014. As on that date, the proceedings for A.Y.2009-10 in the case of the assessee herein had already been concluded and hence it becomes an unabated assessment. The seized…

Mayur Rice Mills Private Limited, Jhumritelaiya vs. PCIT, Ranchi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 33/RAN/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi02 Nov 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Hon’Ble & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Hon’Bleassessment Year: 2012-13 Mayur Rice Mills Private Limited Pr. Cit, Ranchi Gujhandi Road Vs Vill – Barwadih, Jhumritelaiya Pin - 825409 Pan : Aafcm5928H अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri S.K. Pransukha, A/R Revenue By : Shri Sanjay Mukherjee, Cit, D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 21/09/2022 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 02/11/2022 आदेश/O R D E R Per Shri Rajesh Kumar: The Present Appeal Is Directed At The Instance Of The Assessee Against The Order Of The Learned Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) - Ranchi (Hereinafter ‘Ld. Pr. Cit’), Dated 30/03/2022, Passed Under Section 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”), For Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. The Sole Issue Raised In The Various Grounds Of Appeal Is Against The Invalid Exercise Of Jurisdiction U/S 263 Of The Act By The Ld. Pr. Cit As The Revisionary Proceedings Are Hopelessly Barred By Limitation.

For Appellant: Shri S.K. Pransukha, A/RFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Mukherjee, CIT, D/R
Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 263Section 263(2)Section 56(2)(vii)

…led the original assessment passed u/s 143(3) Assessment Year: 2012-13 Mayur Rice Mills Private Limited 4 of the Act but it is barred by limitation which is against the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs Alagendran Finance Ltd (293 ITR 1) (SC) and CIT vs. ICICI Bank Limited (2012) 343 ITR 74 (Bom.). The ld. A.R. submitted that in both these decisions, the Hon’ble Courts have held that the two years period of limitation shall run from the end of financial year in which the original assessment was framed and not from the end of financial year in which the reassessment was framed when…