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.

The Tata Power Company Ltd, Mumbai vs. Pr CIT 2, Mumbai

In the result, appeal is allowed, as indicated above

ITA 1307/MUM/2020[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jul 2021AY 2010-11

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

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 144C(1)Section 147Section 263Section 80I

…ct is a subject matter of that proceeding. However, he submitted, the period of limitation for revising the original assessment order has already expired. In support of such contention, he relied upon the following decisions:- 1. CIT vs Alagendran Finance Ltd 293 ITR 1 (SC) 5 ITA 1307/Mum/2020 2. Àsoka Buildcon Ltd vs ACIT 325 ITR 574 (Bom) 3. CIT vs ICICI Bank Ltd 343 ITR 74 (Bom) 4. M/s Janata Industries vs PCIT ITA No.4025 & 4026/Mum/2017 dt 23- 05-2018 5. Strongly relying upon the observations of learned PCIT, the learned departmental representative submitted, the order passed under section 263 of the Act…

Andhra Pradesh Power Generation Corporation Limited, Vijayawada vs. The ACIT, Circle-3(1), Vijayawada

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 167/VIZ/2020[20102-13]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam25 Jun 2021

Bench: Shri N.K.Choudhry, Hon’Ble & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.167/Viz/2020 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year:2012-13) Andhra Pradesh Power Generation Vs. Asst.Commissioner Of Corporation Ltd. Income Tax Vijayawada Circle-3(1) [Pan : Aacca2734J] Vijayawada (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri M.ChandramouleswaraFor Respondent: Shri D.K.Sonowal, CIT(DR)
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 263Section 80I

…expired by 31.03.2017, hence, submitted that the order passed by the Ld.Pr.CIT is time barred, hence, requested to quash the order passed u/s 263. The assessee also relied on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Alagendran Finance Ltd. 293 ITR 1 (SC) and the decision of Ahoka Buildcon Ltd. V. CIT (2010) 191 Taxman 29 (Bom.). 5. On the other hand, the Ld.DR supported the order of the Ld.Pr.CIT and argued that since, the AO has not examined the issue with regard to allowability of depreciation on chimneys in the reassessment made u/s 147 r.w.s. 143(3) of the Act and the Ld.Pr.CIT is within…

Intelenet Global Services Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax 12(2), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 5844/MUM/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 May 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh () & Shri Ravish Sood () M/S Intelenet Global Services Pvt. Acit – 12(2), 145, Aaykar Ltd; Intelenet Towers, Plot Cst No. Vs. Bhawan, Maharshi Karve Marg, 1406-A/28, Mindspace, Malad (W), Mumbai – 400 020 Mumbai – 400 090. Pan No. Aaaci7387P (Assessee) (Revenue) Assessee By : Shri S.K Tyagi, A.R Revenue By : Shri V. Sreekar, Cit D.R Date Of Hearing : 24/02/2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 24/05/2021

For Appellant: Shri S.K Tyagi, A.RFor Respondent: Shri V. Sreekar, CIT D.R
Section 10ASection 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 68

…on the basis of which the case of the assessee was reopened, therefore, cannot be held to have merged in the reassessment order. Our aforesaid view is fortified by the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Alagendran Finance Ltd. (2007) 293 ITR 1 (SC). In its aforesaid order, it was observed by the Hon‟ble Apex Court that in respect of an issue which was not a subject matter of reassessment, limitation under Sec. 263(2) would run from the date of original assessment as there was no question of application of doctrine of merger in such a case. Also, a similar view had been taken by the Hon’b…

Begani Dyeing Mills Pvt.Ltd., Surat vs. The Pr.CIT., Circle-1, Surat

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 404/SRT/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Surat22 Mar 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Hon'Ble & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Hon'Ble(Virtual Hearing) आ.अ.सं./I.T.A No.404/Srt/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2012-13 M/S.Begani Dyeing Mills Pvt. Vs The Principal Ltd., Commissioner Of Income 11 To 15, Tara Industrial Estate, Tax-1, Surat. Opp. Gangdhi Kutir, Udhna Magdalla Road, Surat – 395007. [Pan: Aaacb 9634 L] अपीलाथ" / Appellant ""थ"/Respondent िनधा"रतीकीओर से /Assessee By Shri Rasesh Shah – Ar राज"कीओर से /Revenue By Shri S.T.Bidari – Cit(Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing: 22.03.2021 उद्घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement On: 22.03.2021 आदेश /O R D E R Per Pawan Singh: 1. This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Learned Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Surat-1, Surat Hereinafter Referred As “Ld. Pcit” , Passed Under Section 263 Dated 07.12.2018 For The A.Y.2012-13. The Assessee Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. On The Facts & In Circumstances Of The Case As Well As Law On The Subject, The Learned Pr. Cit Has Erred In Passing The Order U/S . 263 By Invoking Of Section 263 Of The Act, Although The Assessment Order Passed U/S. 147 R.W.S 143(3) Of The I. T. Act, 1961 Was Neither Erroneous Nor Prejudicial To The Interest Of The Revenue.

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 14ASection 263Section 80I

…sessment order was passed. In support of his submission, the learned AR of the assessee relied upon the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in M/s.Begani Dyeing Mills Private Limited Vs. PCIT, ITA No.404/SRT/2019 for A.Y.2012-13 CIT Vs. Alagendran Finance Lt. [162 Taxmann 465] (SC) and CIT Vs. ICICI Bank Ld., [19 taxmann.com 142] (Bombay HC). 5. In second alternative submission, the learned AR of the assessee submits that it is settled law that disallowance under section 14A of the Act should not exceed the exempt income. The assessee earned exempt income of Rs.2,02,337/-, the AO already disallowed more than the e…

M/S Hinal Estate Pvt Ltd., Mumbai vs. Pr CIT 10, Mumbai

ITA 7938/MUM/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Mar 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahman () & Shri Ravish Sood () Ita No.7938 /Mum/2019 (Assessment Year: 2009-10) M/S Hinal Estate Private Ltd. Principal Commissioner Of A-1 Hinal Estate, Patel Wadi, Vs. Income Tax-10, Room No. 416, 4Th Floor, S.V. Road, Borivali West, Mumbai – 400 057 Aaykar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai- 400 020 Pan No. Aabch6287J (Assessee) (Revenue) Assessee By : Shri. Naresh Jain, A.R Revenue By : Shri Sandeep Raj, D.R Date Of Hearing : 08/02/2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 08/03/2021

For Appellant: Shri. Naresh Jain, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sandeep Raj, D.R
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 263Section 68

…ings is also bad- in-law and void-ab-initio. 3. That on the facts & circumstances of the case, 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 Alagendran Finance Limited [(2007) 293 ITR 1] in so far as the issue of alleged accommodation entries by Shri Praveen Kumar Jain as per the impugned order is not the subject matter of the reason to believe for re-assessment proceeding, as such, the order u/s 263 is bad-in- law and liable to be quashed 4. That in the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. Principal CIT has err…

M/S. Karnataka Power Corporation Limited, Bengaluru vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 11(5) Presently Circle 4(1)(1), Bengaluru

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

ITA 282/BANG/2017[2002 - 2003]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore11 Jan 2021

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Shri George George K, Jm

For Appellant: Sri.Narendra Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri.Kannan Narayanan, JCIT-DR
Section 115JSection 143Section 143(3)Section 154Section 263

…o hold that the A.O. is justified in making rectification of the issue, which are not subject matter of appeal / revision. In this context, it is relevant to refer to the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of CIT v. Alagendran Finance Ltd. [(2007) 293 ITR 1 (SC)] . The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of CIT v. Alagendran Finance Ltd. (supra) was considering the issue of doctrine of merger and whether Commissioner’s order passed u/s 263 of the I.T.Act is barred by limitation. In the said case, there were assessments completed for assessment years 1994- 95 to 1996-1997 and subsequently there were reasses…

Jindal Steel & Power Ltd., New Delhi vs. Prcit, Gurugram

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed on the issue of the impugned order passed beyond the prescribed time, other issues are left open

ITA 4607/DEL/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 May 2020AY 2009-10
For Appellant: ShriSalilKapoor, AdvFor Respondent: ShriRaman Chopra[CIT] –
Section 143Section 144CSection 147Section 263Section 263(2)Section 92C

…INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH „C‟ ”H-1”: NEW DELHI BEFORESHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & Shri K N CHARRY , JUDICIAL MEMBER Jindal Steel & Power Ltd. Pr. CIT, 12, BhikajiCama Place, Vs. Gurgaon. New Delhi – 110 029. PAN : AAACJ7097D (Appellant) (Respondent) Revenue by : ShriRaman Chopra[CIT] – DR Assessee by: ShriSalilKapoor, Adv.; ShriSunitLal; Ms. Chandani, Advs.; Ms. AnanyaKapoor, Adv. Date of Hearing 19/03/2020 Date of pronouncement 14/05/2020 O R D E R PER PRASHANT MAHARISHI, A. M. : 01 This appeal is filed by assessee, M/s Jindal steel and Power Ltd ( Assessee , Appellant) against…

M/S K R Construction, Mumbai vs. Pr CIT Central-3, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 7615/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Feb 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri G. Manjunathak.R.Construction Vs. Principal Commissioner Of Basement, Hinal Residency Income Tax-Central-3 19Th Floor Datta Mandir Road Dahanukar Wadi Air India Building Kandivali(W) Nariman Point Mumbai-400 067 Mumbai-400 021

Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 263

…ial proceeding is bad-in-law and liable to be quashed. 2. That on the facts & circumstances of the case, the impugned order passed by the Ld. CIT u/s 263 is time barred as per the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Alagendran Finance Limited [(2007) 293 ITR 1] in so far as the Ld. Pr. CIT set-aside the order for fresh enquiry with 2 K.R.Construction respect expenses and unsecured loan, which was the subject matter of original scrutiny assessment proceedings and not re-assessment proceeding, as such, the order u/s 263 is bad-in4aw and liable to be quashed. 3. That in the facts and circumstances of the…

M/S. Shyam Steel Manufacturing Ltd., (Formerly Known As Sova Ispat Ltd.), Kolkata vs. DCIT, Circle - 3(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1227/KOL/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata03 Jan 2020AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, V.P (Kz) & Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm ]

Section 139Section 143(3)Section 147Section 263Section 263(2)Section 68

…d by the AO u/s. 143(3) of the Act dt. 20-04-2009, consequently, the same is barred by limitation and the order is non est in the eye of law. The Ld. AR cited the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT V/s. Alagendran Finance Ltd reported in 293 ITR 1 (SC), wherein it was held that where that part of order of assessment was found to be prejudicial to interest of revenue which had nothing to do with the reassessment proceedings and never a subject-matter of the reassessment proceedings, the doctrine of merger would not apply and the period of limitation provided for in section 263(2) of the Act w…

Dr.Balachandran Nair M, Trivandrum vs. The ACIT, Circle-1(1), Trivandrum

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 147/COCH/2019[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin27 Sept 2019AY 2006-07

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm

Section 263

…which was considered and decided by him and hence, the jurisdiction of the Commissioner, does not extend to this matter as per the above explanation. 4.1 The Ld. AR relied on the judgment of the Supreme court in the case of CIT vs. Alagendran Finance Ltd. (293 ITR 1) (SC) and also the decision of the Chandigarh Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Haryana State Co-operative Supply And Marketing Federation Ltd. vs. Deputy CIT (274 ITR (AT) 167). It was submitted that I.T.A. Nos. 147-150/Coch/2019 it is now well settled that the powers of the Commissioner under s.263 extends only to such matters as had not bee…

Ambuja Cements Limited, Mumbai vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Ltu), Mumbai

In the result, appeal is allowed as indicated above

ITA 3643/MUM/2018[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Sept 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri G. Manjunatha

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh Thar a/wFor Respondent: Shri Anadi Verma
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 263

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI G. MANJUNATHA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA no.3643/Mum./2018 (Assessment Year : 2007–08) Ambuja Cements Ltd. Elegant Business Park MIDC Cross Road ……………. Appellant “B” J.B. Nagar, Andheri (E) Mumbai 400 059 PAN – AAACG0569P v/s Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax ……………. Respondent Large Taxpayer Unit–I, Mumbai Assessee by : Shri Yogesh Thar a/w Ms. Vidhi Doshi and Shri Hardik Nirmal Revenue by : Shri Anadi Verma Date of Hearing – 17.06.2019 Date of Order – 05.09.2019 O R D E R PER SAKTIJIT DEY. J.M. Captioned app…

Larsen & Toubro Infotech Ltd, Mumbai vs. The Principal Commissioner of Incomne Tax-2, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed, as above

ITA 3107/MUM/2016[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jul 2019AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri C.N. Prasad: A.Y : 2006-07

For Appellant: Shri Vijay MehtaFor Respondent: Shri B. Pruseth
Section 10ASection 10A(8)Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 70Section 71Section 72

…thus, the notice u/s 263 of the Act is barred by limitation, ultra virus and bad in law. In support of this, the learned representative for the assessee relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Alagendran Finance Ltd. [2007] 293 ITR 1 (SC). The next argument put forth by the learned representative was that the issue of set-off of loss of ineligible unit against the eligible unit has been decided by the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in favour of the assessee for Assessment Years 2002-03 and 2005-06. As such, the view taken by the Assessing Officer was one of the possible views and, t…

Gujarat State Electricity Corporation Ltd., Baroda vs. The Pr. CIT, Vadodara-1, Baroda

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 468/AHD/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad13 Mar 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Pradip Kumar Kediaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.468/Ahd/2016 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2008-09)

For Appellant: Shri J.P. Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Jagdish, CIT-DR
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 147Section 263Section 263(1)

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, अहमदाबाद "यायपीठ ‘डी’, अहमदाबाद । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE SHRI RAJPAL YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER And SHRI PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.468/Ahd/2016 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2008-09) Gujarat State Electricity Pr.CIT-I बनाम/ Corp.Ltd. Vadodara Vs. Vidyut Bhavan Race Course Circle, Baroda "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./PAN/GIR No. : AAACG 6864 F .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" ओर से / Appellant by : Shri J.P. Shah, AR ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent by : Shri Jagdish, CIT-DR सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date of Hea…

M/S. Sri Balaji Forgings (P) Ltd., New Delhi vs. Pr. CIT- 8, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of Assessee is allowed

ITA 3216/DEL/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Jan 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini, J.M. & Shri Prashant Maharishi, A.M.

For Appellant: Advocates &For Respondent: Shri S.S.Rana, CIT-D.R
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263

…6 dropping the re- assessment proceedings. Therefore, the impugned Order cannot be revised under section 263 of the I.T. Act. In support of his contention he has relied upon decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Alagendran Finance Ltd., 293 ITR 1 and Judgment of Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in the case of L.G. Electronics India Pvt. Ltd., 388 ITR 135. He has submitted that Ld. Pr. CIT could have revised the second re-assessment order dated 05.12.2016 whereby re-assessment was dropped. In support of his contention he has relied upon the Order of ITAT, Indore Bench, Third Member, in the case…

City Union Bank Limited, Kumbakonam vs. ACIT Circle 1, Kumbakonam

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1789/CHNY/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai15 Nov 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri A.Mohan Alankamony

For Appellant: Mr.S.Ananthan & Mr.Abarna C.As ""For Respondent: Mr.Varuvuuru Sridhar,JCIT,D.R
Section 143(3)Section 148Section 14ASection 263Section 40

…u/s.14A read with Rules 8D had not been properly done by the ld. Assessing Officer. In reply, the ld.A.R submitted that issue was now squarely covered by the principles laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Alagendran Finance Ltd., reported in [2007] 293 ITR 1 (SC) wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has categorically held that:- “There may not be any doubt or dispute that once an order of assessment is re-opened, the previous under assessment will be held to be set aside and the whole proceedings would start afresh, but that would not mean that even when the subject-matter of reassessment is distinct an…

Metropolitan Stock Exchange of India Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax - 14, Mumbai

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

ITA 4081/MUM/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Oct 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Am & Shri Ram Lal Negi, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Sumant Chadha &
Section 142Section 147Section 148Section 263

…16 for the reasons that they were not be a part of the reasons recorded before issue of notice u/s. 148. In this regard, the ld. CIT noted that the assessee has referred to the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of CIT vs. Alagendran Finance Ltd. 293 ITR 1 [2007] as well as the Hon'ble Bombay High Court decision in the case of CIT vs. Lark Chemicals Ltd. 368 ITR 655 (Bom). Both these case laws had expounded that the Commissioner could not exercise his 4 revisionary power u/s. 263 on items which were not the subject matter of reassessment. The ld. CIT distinguished these orders on the ground that…

ACIT, Moradabad vs. M/S. Jubilant Organosyes Ltd., J.P. Nagar

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2513/DEL/2013[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Sept 2018AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri G.D. Agrawal, Hon’Ble & Shri Amit Shukla

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Verma, CIT-DRFor Respondent: Shri K.M. Gupta, Adv. & Ms. Poonam
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 154Section 154(7)Section 251

…ent in the "original order" dated 31.03.2006 and hence limitation would count from that order. 30. We may also notice at this stage that Supreme Court's judgment in Hind Wire Industries Ltd. (supra) has been considered in CIT v. Alagendran Finance Ltd. [2007] 293 ITR 1/162 Taxman 465 (SC) and it has been said therein that there may not be any doubt or dispute that once an order of assessment is reopened, previous assessment would be held to be set aside and the whole proceedings would start afresh but the same would not mean that even when the subject matter of reassessment is distinct and different, the entire p…

M/S.Us Technology International P. Ltd, Trivandrum vs. The JCIT, Trivandrum

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

ITA 247/COCH/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin23 Jul 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Shri George George K, Jm

For Appellant: Sri.M.Raghunathan SFor Respondent: Sri.Santam Bose
Section 10ASection 10BSection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 263

…learned AR submitted that order passed u/s 263 of the I.T.Act, was barred by limitation. It was submitted that the said issue is covered in favour of the assessee by the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of CIT v. Alagendran Finance Ltd. [(2007) 293 ITR 1 (SC)] and the judgment of the Hon’ble ITA No.247/Coch/2017. 7 M/s.US Technology International P.Ltd. [(2012) 349 ITR 482 (Bom.)] . The learned Departmental Representative, on the other hand, supported the order passed u/s 263 of the I.T.Act. 5. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record. The revisionary order u/s 263 o…

Konark Structural Engg Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-12, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 5488/MUM/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 May 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Revenue by B Sriniwas, DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263

…ction 263 is bad in law and is liable to be quashed. 2. That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the order passed by the Ld. CIT under section 263 is time barred as per the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Alagendra Finance Limited (2007) 293 ITR 1 and is hence liable to be quashed.” 5. On the other hand, the learned CIT DR, has not seriously objected to the admission of additional grounds. 6. After hearing both the sides, as regards as the additional grounds, we feel that this is a purely legal issue and needs adjudication; hence, we admit the additional grounds and will adjudicate this is…

The Choice Foundation, Cochin vs. The ACIT, Cochin

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 20/COCH/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin29 Jan 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Shri George George K, Jm

For Appellant: Sri. K.M.JoseFor Respondent: Sri. A.Dhanaraj, Sr.DR
Section 11Section 11(1)(d)Section 13(8)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 2Section 2(15)Section 2(24)(ii)

…applicability of the provisions of section 2( 15) of the Act no revision can be done u/s.263 by invoking the provisions of section 2(24)(ii)(a), section 2(15) or 13(8) of the Act. Reliance is placed on the decision in, CIT v. Alagendian Finance Limited (2012) 293 ITR 1 (SC) For these and other grounds that may be urged at the time of the hearing, it is prayed that the Order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions), Kochi may be set aside and appropriate reliefs granted.” 2.1 The assessee has also raised additional ground. The additional ground reads as follow:- “In view of the decision of the Apex Court…