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

Issues it is cited on

Judgments citing CIT v. Alagendran Finance Ltd.

Bhaskar Arvind Kumar Hingad, Mumbai vs. Asstt CIT-24(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 692/MUM/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Oct 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar, Vp & Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.692/Mum/2022 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2014-15) Bhaskar Arvind Kumar बिधम/ Acit-24(1) Hingad 601, 6Th Floor, Piramal Vs. Flat No. 1, Ratnakar Chambers, Lalbaug, Parel, Building, 26 Narayan Mumbai-400012. Dhabolkar Road, Mumbai- 400006. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aacph2812F (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Vijay Mehta Revenue By: Dr. Mahesh Akhade (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 29/08/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 21/10/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: This Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Is Against The Order Of The Ld. Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax-20 [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Pcit”], Mumbai Dated 31.03.2022 For Assessment Year 2014- 15 Passed Under Section 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”).

For Appellant: Shri Vijay MehtaFor Respondent: Dr. Mahesh Akhade (DR)
Section 143(3)Section 263

…ind Kumar Hingad being in the subject matter arising from the original assessment order dated 24-11-2016 stands time barred. 32. In this regard, we may gainfully refer to the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs Alagendran Finance Ltd (293 ITR 1). In that case, the regular assessment u/s 143(3) was passed which was followed by an order u/s 147 / 143(3). The reassessment proceedings u/s 147 were initiated with reference to 3 specific issues. In the order passed u/s 147/143(3) the addition was made in respect of all the 3 issues. The CIT thereafter initiated and passed order u/s 263 of the A…

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…

Abt Limited, Chennai vs. The PCIT(Central), Chennai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 62/CHNY/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai24 Aug 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 61 & 62/Chny/2021 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years:2013-14 & 2014-15 M/S. Abt Limited, The Principal Commissioner Of 180, Race Course Road, Vs. Income Tax (Central), Coimbatore 641 018. Chennai-2, Chennai. [Pan:Aabca8398K] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri N. Arjun Raj, C.A. ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri M. Rajan, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 01.08.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 24.08.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: Both The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against Different Orders Of The Ld. Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax (Central), Chennai-2, Chennai, Dated 04.03.2021 & 05.03.2021 Relevant To The Assessment Years 2013-14 & 2014-15 Respectively Challenging The Revision Orders Passed Under Section 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” In Short].

For Appellant: Shri N. Arjun Raj, C.AFor Respondent: Shri M. Rajan, CIT
Section 115JSection 132Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 153ASection 263

…as the decision of the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Indira Industries v. PCIT (2018) 95 taxmann.com 103 (Mad) in which the judgement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. 8 I.T.A. Nos.61 & 62/Chny/21 Alagendran Finance Ltd. 293 ITR 1 (SC) has been considered, the Coordinate Benches of the Tribunal has observed and held as under: “7. We have heard both the parties, perused material available on record and gone through orders of the authorities below. The provisions of section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 empowers Pr.CIT / CIT to revise assessment order passed by the Assessing…

Abt Limited, Coimbatore vs. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax Central, Chennai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 61/CHNY/2021[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai24 Aug 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 61 & 62/Chny/2021 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years:2013-14 & 2014-15 M/S. Abt Limited, The Principal Commissioner Of 180, Race Course Road, Vs. Income Tax (Central), Coimbatore 641 018. Chennai-2, Chennai. [Pan:Aabca8398K] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri N. Arjun Raj, C.A. ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri M. Rajan, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 01.08.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 24.08.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: Both The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against Different Orders Of The Ld. Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax (Central), Chennai-2, Chennai, Dated 04.03.2021 & 05.03.2021 Relevant To The Assessment Years 2013-14 & 2014-15 Respectively Challenging The Revision Orders Passed Under Section 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” In Short].

For Appellant: Shri N. Arjun Raj, C.AFor Respondent: Shri M. Rajan, CIT
Section 115JSection 132Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 153ASection 263

…as the decision of the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Indira Industries v. PCIT (2018) 95 taxmann.com 103 (Mad) in which the judgement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. 8 I.T.A. Nos.61 & 62/Chny/21 Alagendran Finance Ltd. 293 ITR 1 (SC) has been considered, the Coordinate Benches of the Tribunal has observed and held as under: “7. We have heard both the parties, perused material available on record and gone through orders of the authorities below. The provisions of section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 empowers Pr.CIT / CIT to revise assessment order passed by the Assessing…

Penta Media Graphics Ltd., Chennai vs. DCIT, Chennai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee for AY 2003-04 is allowed for statistical purposes and the appeal for AY 2002-03 is dismissed

ITA 1404/CHNY/2015[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai29 Jul 2022AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.1403 & 1404/Chny/2015 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2002-03 & 2003-04 M/S. Penta Media Graphics Ltd., Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of ‘Taurus’, No. 25, First Main Road, Income Tax, Media Circle I, Room No. 311, 3Rd Floor, New Block, United India Colony Kodambakkam, Chennai 600 024. 121, Mahatma Gandhi Road, Nungambakkam, Chennai 600 034. [Pan: Aaacp1647B] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Sree Lakshmi Valli, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Guru Bashyam, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 06.07.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 29.07.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: Both The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against Different Orders Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 14, Chennai Dated 27.03.2015 & 31.03.2015 Relevant To The Assessment Years 2002-03 & 2003-04 Respectively.

For Appellant: Sree Lakshmi Valli, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Guru Bashyam, CIT-DR
Section 10BSection 143(3)Section 263

…ought to have noted that in so far as the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax pursuant to which the impugned order has been passed is barred by limitation in view of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs Alagendran Finance Ltd. (293 ITR 1), the present impugned order has no basis. (e) The Assessing Authority erred in proceeding pursuant to an invalid order in so far as the order u/s 263 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax has been passed in contravention of the ingredients of Sec.263. The present impugned order dated 15.12.2011 refers to a proposal initiated by the Assessing Au…

Penta Media Graphics Ltd., Chennai vs. DCIT, Chennai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee for AY 2003-04 is allowed for statistical purposes and the appeal for AY 2002-03 is dismissed

ITA 1403/CHNY/2015[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai29 Jul 2022AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.1403 & 1404/Chny/2015 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2002-03 & 2003-04 M/S. Penta Media Graphics Ltd., Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of ‘Taurus’, No. 25, First Main Road, Income Tax, Media Circle I, Room No. 311, 3Rd Floor, New Block, United India Colony Kodambakkam, Chennai 600 024. 121, Mahatma Gandhi Road, Nungambakkam, Chennai 600 034. [Pan: Aaacp1647B] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Sree Lakshmi Valli, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Guru Bashyam, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 06.07.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 29.07.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: Both The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against Different Orders Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 14, Chennai Dated 27.03.2015 & 31.03.2015 Relevant To The Assessment Years 2002-03 & 2003-04 Respectively.

For Appellant: Sree Lakshmi Valli, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Guru Bashyam, CIT-DR
Section 10BSection 143(3)Section 263

…ought to have noted that in so far as the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax pursuant to which the impugned order has been passed is barred by limitation in view of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs Alagendran Finance Ltd. (293 ITR 1), the present impugned order has no basis. (e) The Assessing Authority erred in proceeding pursuant to an invalid order in so far as the order u/s 263 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax has been passed in contravention of the ingredients of Sec.263. The present impugned order dated 15.12.2011 refers to a proposal initiated by the Assessing Au…