CIT v. Alagendran Finance Ltd.

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

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

…ionary jurisdiction u/s 263 of the Act. 3. That on the facts & circumstances of the case, N.A. the impugned order passed by the Ld. Principal CIT u/s 263 is time barred as per the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Alagendram Finance Limited [(2007) 293 ITR 1} in so far as the issue of claim of expenditure in the impugned order is not the subject matter of reason to believe for re-assessment proceeding, as such, the order u/s 263 is bad-in-law and liable to be quashed. 4. Without prejudice to the above, in the facts N.A. and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. Principal CIT has erred in not st…

Icici Bank Ltd., Mumbai vs. The Dy CIT -2(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result we hold that the learned principal

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm Icici Bank Limited The Dy. Commissioner Of Icici Bank Towers, Income-Tax-2(3)(1), Aayakar Bhavan, 5 Th Floor, Bandra Kurla Complex, Vs. Bandra (East), Room No.552, Mumbai-400 051 M.K.Road, Mumbai-400 020 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaaci1195H Appellant By : Ms Arati Vissanji, Ar Respondent By : Shri Nikhil Chaudhary, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 13.01.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 08.03.2022

…263 of the Act. For this proposition, she referred to the decision in assessee’s own case of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court for Assessment Year 1996-97, wherein following the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of CIT vs. Alagendran Finance Ltd. (2007) [293 ITR 1] (SC) revision proceedings were held to be invalid. 010. With respect to taking exact amount of lease rent and income tax refund for working deduction u/s 36 (1) (vii) , she submitted that both items are related to the claim of deduction under section 36(1)(vii) which is subject matter of appeal before the learned Commissioner of income-tax (Appea…

Ramesh Kumar Purohit, Mumbai vs. Pr. CIT, City-17, Mumbai

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

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Raghunath Kamble () & Shri Amarjit Singh () Assessment Year: 2011-12 Ramesh Kumar Purohit, Pr. Cit, City-17, Room No. 120, 1St Floor, Sahara Shopee, Shop No. 191, Off. Manish Market, S.S. Musafirkhana Road, Vs. Kautilya Bhavan, C-41 To C- Mumbai-400 001. 43, G Block, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (E), Mumbai-400051. Pan No. Axmpp 6458 N Appellant Respondent

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “D” MUMBAI BEFORE MS. SUCHITRA RAGHUNATH KAMBLE (JUDICIAL MEMBER) AND SHRI AMARJIT SINGH (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) Assessment Year: 2011-12 Ramesh Kumar Purohit, Pr. CIT, City-17, Room No. 120, 1st floor, Sahara Shopee, Shop No. 191, Off. Manish Market, S.S. Musafirkhana Road, Vs. Kautilya Bhavan, C-41 to C- Mumbai-400 001. 43, G Block, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (E), Mumbai-400051. PAN No. AXMPP 6458 N Appellant Respondent Assessee by : Mr. Prakash Jhunjhunwala, AR Revenue by : Mr. D.K. Gupta, DR Date of Hearing : 23/12/2021 Date of pronouncement : 10/01/2022 ORDER…

Institute of Chemical Technology, Mumbai vs. ACIT (E)- I(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

…ssment framed by the ld. CIT(Exemptions) on 21/03/2018 is squarely barred by limitation. We find that the very same issue is no longer res integra in view of the decision of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Alagendran Finance Ltd., reported in 293 ITR 1 (SC). The relevant portion of the said order is reproduced hereunder:- “7. A bare perusal of the order passed by the Commissioner of Income-tax would clearly demonstrate that only that part of order of assessment which related to lease equalization fund was found to be prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. The proceedings for reassessment ha…

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

In the result, appeal is allowed, as indicated above

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

…itted, the impugned order of learned 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:- 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.…

Omkailash Finance & Investment P. Ltd., Mumbai vs. Pr. CIT-4, Mumbai

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya () & Shri Ravish Sood () Om Kailash Finance & Principal Commissioner Investment Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Of Income Tax – 4 (Pr. 101/A, Ritvi Park, Cit-4), 629, 6Th Floor, S.V. Road, Santacruz Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. (West), Mumbai – 400 054 Road, Churchgate, Mumbai – 400 020 Pan No.Aaacoo496P (Assessee) (Revenue) Assessee By : Shri Rakesh Joshi, A.R Revenue By : Shri R.K. Sahu, Cit D.R Date Of Hearing : 01/09/2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 20/09/2021 Order Per Ravish Sood, J.M: The Present Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax-4 (For Short “Pr.Cit”), Mumbai Under Section 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (For Short „Act‟) Dated 18.02.2020, Which In Turn Arises From The Order Passed By The A.O U/S 143(3) R.W Sec 147 Of The Act Dated 28.12.2017. 2. The Assessee Has Assailed The Impugned Order On The Following Grounds Before Us: “1. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Learned Pr.Cit Grossly Erred In Invoking The Provisions Of Section 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Without

…d of limitation provided for under sub-section (2) of section 263 of the Act would begin to run from the date of original assessment order and not from the order of reassessment as held by the Apex Court in the case of CIT Vs. Alagendran Finance Ltd. [(2007)] 293 ITR 1 (SC)].” 3. Briefly stated, the assessee company which is engaged in the business of finance and investment had filed its return of income for Assessment Year (A.Y) 2010-11 on 24.09.2010 declaring a total income of Rs. Nil (after set-off of brought forward business loss of Rs. 22,12,602/-). The return of income filed by the assessee company was init…

Reliance Industries Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT (Ltu)-2, Mumbai

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

Bench: Hon’Ble Justice P.P.Bhatt & Shri Shamim Yahya

…l be counted from date of original assessment order. While holding so, the HC also considered SC decision in case of Hind Wire Industries Ltd 212 ITR 639 and held that said decision is already considered by the SC in later case of CIT v Alagendran Finance Ltd 293 ITR 1 and accordingly upheld the action of the AO holding that in the garb of remand order in relation to some other aspect, the assessee could not have taken advantage of extension of limitation by seeking commencement thereof from the order passed by the AO on the issue on which remand is made. • ACIT v Precott Mills Ltd 178 Taxman 15 (Chennai)(Mag) (…

Spectrum Venture Pvt Ltd., Mumbai vs. Pr CIT 4, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Ravish Soodassessment Year: 2010-11

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI BENCH “C”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER, AND SHRI RAVISH SOOD, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year: 2010-11 M/s. Spectrum Venture The Pr. CIT-4, Pvt. Ltd., Room No.629, 6th Floor, 501/502, Aayakar Bhavan, Makhija Chambers Maharshi Karve Marg, Vs. Premises CSL, Mumbai - 400020 196, Turner Road, Bandra West, Mumbai – 400 050 PAN: AANCS6614C (Appellant) (Respondent) Present for: Assessee by : Shri Rajnish K. Vohra, A.R. Revenue by : Shri Rajeek Sahu, D.R. Date of Hearing : 23.08.2021 Date of Pronouncement :01.09.2021 O R D E R Per Rajesh Kumar, Accou…